[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57370-57382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26153]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

49 Parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130

[Docket No. EP 733]


Expediting Rate Cases

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 11 of the Surface Transportation Board 
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (STB Reauthorization Act), the Surface 
Transportation Board (Board) is modifying rules pertaining to its rate 
case procedures.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information or questions regarding this final 
rule should reference Docket No. EP 733 and be in writing addressed to: 
Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface 
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Quinn, (202) 245-0283. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act, 
Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015), directs the Board to 
``initiate a proceeding to assess procedures that are available to 
parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation and the 
potential application of any such procedures to rate cases.'' In 
addition, section 11 requires the Board to comply with a new timeline 
in Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) cases.
    In advance of initiating this proceeding, Board staff held informal 
meetings with stakeholders \1\ to explore and discuss: (1) How 
procedures to expedite court litigation could be applied to rate cases 
and (2) additional ways to move SAC cases forward more expeditiously. 
The Board issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 15, 
2016, seeking formal comment on specific ideas raised in the informal 
meetings as well as comments on any other relevant matters. Expediting 
Rate Cases (ANPRM), EP 733 (STB served June 15, 2016). See 81 FR 40250 
(June 21, 2016). The Board received eight opening comments and six 
reply comments on the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Board staff met with individuals either associated with and/
or speaking on behalf of the following organizations: American 
Chemistry Council; Archer Daniels Midland Company; CSX 
Transportation, Inc.; Economists Incorporated; Dr. Gerald Faulhaber; 
FTI Consulting, Inc.; GKG Law, P.C.; Growth Energy; Highroad 
Consulting; L.E. Peabody; LaRoe, Winn, Moerman & Donovan; consultant 
Michael A. Nelson; Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR); Olin 
Corporation; POET Ethanol Products; Sidley Austin LLP; Slover & 
Loftus LLP; Steptoe & Johnson LLP; The Chlorine Institute; The 
Fertilizer Institute; The National Industrial Transportation League; 
and Thompson Hine LLP. The Board notes that some participants 
expressed individual views, not on behalf of the organization(s) 
with which they are associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 31, 2017, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, addressing the comments on the ANPRM and proposing specific

[[Page 57371]]

amendments to its regulations. Expediting Rate Cases (NPRM), EP 733 
(STB served Mar. 31, 2017). See 82 FR 16550 (April 5, 2017). The Board 
received four opening comments and six reply comments on the NPRM.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Comments were received from the following organizations: The 
American Chemistry Council, the Fertilizer Institute, and the 
National Industrial Transportation League (ACC, TFI, and NITL); the 
Association of American Railroads (AAR); the National Grain and Feed 
Association (NGFA); Samuel J. Nasca on behalf of SMART/
Transportation Division, New York State Legislative Board; Union 
Pacific Railroad Company (UP); and the Western Coal Traffic League, 
American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, 
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Freight Rail Customer 
Alliance (collectively, Coal Shippers/NARUC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below, the Board addresses the comments and suggestions submitted 
by parties in response to the NPRM and discusses clarifications and 
modifications being adopted in the final rule to help improve the rate 
review process.\3\ The text of the final rule is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The final rule adopted in this rulemaking pertains mostly to 
SAC cases--the Board's methodology for large rate cases. However, 
some aspects of the final rule would also benefit cases filed under 
the Board's other methodologies, Simplified-SAC and Three-Benchmark 
(collectively, simplified standards). See Simplified Standards for 
Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007). In 
those instances, the rule will specify to which types of cases it 
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pre-Complaint Period. In the NPRM, the Board proposed to create a 
pre-complaint period, which would begin when a SAC complainant files a 
pre-filing notice with the Board. Under the proposed rule, a 
complainant would file the pre-filing notice at least 70 days prior to 
filing its complaint. The proposed pre-filing notice would contain the 
rate and origin/destination pair(s) to be challenged, the commodities 
at issue, and a motion for protective order pursuant to the proposed, 
new 49 CFR 1104.14(c).\4\ The Board also proposed to revise its 
regulations to move mandatory mediation in SAC cases to the pre-
complaint period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the NPRM, the Board proposed standard identifying markers 
for the submission of confidential, highly confidential, and 
sensitive security information in rate cases at Sec.  1104.14(c). 
This proposal is discussed in more detail, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several stakeholders generally support the Board's proposed pre-
complaint period, although some suggested modification to the proposed 
rule. ACC, TFI, and NITL state that the pre-filing notice would allow 
parties to begin many functions that would typically occur after a 
complaint is filed and note that engaging in mediation before the 
filing of a complaint could potentially avoid the filing of a complaint 
at all. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 3.) They also suggest that the 
Board allow for skipping or shortening the pre-complaint period when 
the statute of limitations would otherwise bar any portion of a 
complaint that is filed after the notice period expires. (Id. at 4.) 
AAR also supports conducting mediation during the pre-complaint period, 
noting that a pre-filing notice would potentially foster private-sector 
resolution of the dispute by allowing Board-administered mediation to 
begin earlier. (AAR NPRM Comments 5-6.) AAR, however, urges the Board 
to clarify that protective orders filed with the pre-filing notice may 
continue to include provisions recognizing a party's right to review 
its own confidential or highly confidential material referenced in the 
other party's filings. (AAR NPRM Comments 7; see also Coal Shippers/
NARUC NPRM Reply 4 (noting that they do not object to this request).) 
NGFA does not oppose the Board's proposal to provide for a pre-
complaint period and pre-filing notice so parties can engage in 
mediation before filing a SAC complaint but recommends that the 
mediation period span no more than 45 days, subject to extensions by 
agreement of the parties. (NGFA NPRM Comments 4.)
    Coal Shippers/NARUC urge the Board not to adopt the proposed pre-
complaint period rules. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 14.) 
According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, the pre-filing notice requirement 
would lengthen the rate case schedule. (Id. at 16.) They also argue 
that the pre-filing notice would not expedite discovery. (Id. at 23 
(citing NSR ANPRM Comments 35 (``The railroad can only begin to gather 
the necessary documents and data once a shipper has . . . served its 
discovery requests, informing the railroad of the time frame for 
discovery materials and segments of the railroad for which discovery is 
sought''); AAR ANPRM Comments 6 (pre-filing notice ``would not actually 
expedite the rate case itself once it is filed'')); see also ACC, TFI, 
& NITL NPRM Reply 5.) According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, railroads would 
continue to ``withhold'' production of the most important information 
unless the Board establishes expedited post-complaint deadlines for 
discovery production. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 24 (citing NSR 
ANPRM Comments 6).)
    Coal Shippers/NARUC urge that, if the Board establishes a pre-
filing notice requirement, it should also require railroads to provide 
common carrier rates and service terms to shippers upon request no 
later than 90 days prior to the anticipated start of the common carrier 
service. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 29; see also ACC, TFI, & 
NITL NPRM Reply 5-6; NGFA NPRM Reply 3.) Coal Shippers/NARUC further 
argue that the pre-filing notice should be optional, (Coal Shippers/
NARUC NPRM Reply 11), and should be filed at least 40 days prior to the 
proposed filing date of a complaint, (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 
30; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 12; see also ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM 
Reply 6; NGFA NPRM Reply 3).
    Coal Shippers/NARUC also do not support moving mandatory mediation 
to the pre-complaint period. According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, by the 
time a case reaches the Board, it is unlikely that a mediated 
resolution can be obtained. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 20.) 
Coal Shippers/NARUC further argue that mediation is more beneficial 
following a complaint because the complaint provides valuable 
information to both the defendant carrier and mediator. (Id. at 21.) 
Coal Shippers/NARUC argue that the Board could best deal with the 
burdens imposed by the Board's current mandatory mediation rules by 
changing those rules to make mediation voluntary, not mandatory, in SAC 
cases. (Id. at 22.) Coal Shippers/NARUC argue that, if the Board 
proceeds with the proposed pre-complaint period, the mediation period 
should be 40 days (beginning when the pre-filing notice is submitted), 
subject to extensions if requested by all parties. (Id. at 32-33; Coal 
Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 12; see also ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 6; 
NGFA NPRM Reply 3.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also argue that the Board 
should reduce the time allotted (i) to assign mediators after the pre-
filing notice is submitted from within 10 business days to within three 
business days, and (ii) for mediators to contact the parties from 
within five business days of assignment to within three business days. 
(Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 32.)
    NGFA suggests the Board shorten the mediation period, specifically 
to no more than 45 days, subject to extension by mutual agreement of 
the parties. (NGFA NPRM Comments 4; NGFA NPRM Reply 3; see also ACC, 
TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 4.) According to NGFA, by the time any non-
agricultural shipper files a SAC complaint, it already would have 
engaged in thorough discussions with the defendant railroad and formal 
action likely would be required to resolve their differences. (NGFA 
NPRM Comments 4; see also ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 4.)
    UP opposes Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that the Board require 
a

[[Page 57372]]

carrier to provide common carrier rates and service terms 90 days prior 
to the anticipated start of that service, arguing such a requirement 
would constitute a modification to the Board's rules governing the 
establishment of common carrier rates, which are neither the subject of 
this proceeding nor a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. (UP NPRM 
Reply 6.) UP further argues that, even if such a rule were permissible, 
a carrier would retain its statutory right to increase the rate with 
20-days' notice or reduce the rate with no notice. (Id. at 7 (citing 49 
U.S.C. 11101(c) & Burlington N. R.R. v. STB, 75 F.3d 685, 694 (D.C. 
Cir. 1996)).)
    The Board continues to believe that establishing a pre-complaint 
period, during which parties would engage in mediation, would help rate 
cases proceed more efficiently. The pre-filing notice would put parties 
on notice as to what they likely will need to produce in discovery and 
enable parties to begin many activities that typically would occur only 
after a complaint is filed. In this respect, the pre-complaint period 
could shorten the rate case schedule by lessening the need for parties 
to request extensions of time once discovery begins. Establishing a 
pre-complaint period will also allow parties to engage in mediation 
before a complaint is filed, enabling parties to focus on mediation 
without the distractions of fully active litigation.\5\ In addition, 
the Board continues to believe that the early submission of a motion 
for protective order will expedite discovery production and disclosures 
by allowing a protective order to be in place at the outset of a case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Board intends for mediation to conclude before the 
filing of a complaint; however, consistent with current procedures, 
the rules would allow for an extension of time via Board order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, completing Board-sponsored mediation during the pre-
complaint period could potentially prevent the filing of a complaint 
altogether. The Board prefers the resolution of disputes through 
mediation in lieu of formal Board proceedings whenever possible. See 49 
CFR 1109.1. AAR noted, and the Board agrees, that pre-complaint 
mediation could foster such resolutions before a formal complaint is 
filed. Mediation is widely used by courts as a measure for expediting 
proceedings.\6\ The Board disagrees with NGFA and Coal Shippers/NARUC 
that, by the time a complaint is filed, formal action would be required 
to resolve the parties' differences. In fact, parties in several rate 
cases have successfully mediated resolutions to rate disputes, even 
following the filing of a formal complaint. See NRG Power Marketing LLC 
v. CSX Transp., Inc., NOR 42122, slip op. at 1 (STB served July 8, 
2010); Williams Olefins, L.L.C. v. Grand Trunk Corp., NOR 42098 (STB 
served Feb. 15, 2007). See also E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. CSX 
Transp., Inc., NOR 42112 (STB served May 11, 2009) (complaint 
challenging the reasonableness of rates dismissed following voluntary 
settlement). Resolving disputes in mediation would save parties 
considerable time and expense, and could better preserve their ongoing 
commercial relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 Section 
3, 28 U.S.C. 651(b), ``[e]ach United States district court shall 
authorize, by local rule . . ., the use of alternative dispute 
resolution processes in all civil actions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also continues to believe that 70 days is the most 
appropriate length for the pre-complaint period because it would allow 
sufficient time for mediation to be completed before the filing of a 
formal complaint, thus freeing parties to focus on mediating a 
resolution before litigation begins. The Board is not persuaded by the 
arguments set forth by Coal Shippers/NARUC and NGFA in support of 
shorter pre-complaint and mediation periods. Coal Shippers/NARUC 
provide no support for their claim that 40 days is ``more than enough 
time'' for parties to reach a mediated solution.
    For these reasons, the Board will adopt the proposal in the NPRM 
with two modifications. First, the Board will modify the rule proposed 
in the NPRM to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that the 
assignment of the mediator(s) should occur in fewer than 10 business 
days after the shipper submits its pre-filing notice. The Board finds 
that five business days would be a reasonable amount of time for the 
Board to assign the mediator(s).\7\ The Board will also modify the 
introductory text of the proposed new section to clarify that the pre-
filing notice is required only in SAC cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Board, however, will maintain the current five business 
day deadline for mediator(s) to contact the parties to discuss 
ground rules and the time and location of any meeting. The Board 
believes that fewer than five days would not provide sufficient time 
for the mediator to establish ground rules for the mediation and 
contact the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in response to AAR's concern regarding a party's ability to 
view its own confidential information when such information is 
referenced in another party's filing, the Board clarifies that the 
rules adopted here would not affect the parties' ability to negotiate 
protective orders addressing that situation, as is routinely done now.
    The Board declines to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that 
the Board require railroads to provide common carrier rates to shippers 
upon request no later than 90 days prior to the start of that service. 
The Board agrees with UP that the dates associated with the 
establishment of common carrier rates are beyond the scope of this 
proceeding.
    The Board also declines to adopt ACC, TFI, and NITL's suggestions 
that the Board allow the pre-complaint period to be skipped or 
shortened when the statute of limitations would otherwise bar any 
portion of a complaint. Adopting such an approach would effectively 
permit parties to ignore the pre-complaint period established in this 
final rule. Parties should take the applicable statute of limitations 
into account when preparing to file a rate case.
    Discovery. The Board also sought comment on several ways the Board 
could change its discovery procedures to help improve the processing of 
rate cases.
    a. Service of initial discovery requests and deadlines for 
production. In the NPRM, the Board proposed requiring parties in SAC 
proceedings to certify that they have served their initial discovery 
requests simultaneously with their complaint and answer. Several 
stakeholders generally support the Board's proposal. (See ACC, TFI, & 
NITL NPRM Comments 4; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 33-34; UP NPRM 
Reply 2.) Both Coal Shippers/NARUC and ACC, TFI, and NITL argue that 
the proposal would ensure discovery begins promptly. (See ACC, TFI, & 
NITL NPRM Comments 4; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 34.) However, 
ACC, TFI, and NITL suggest that the Board limit subsequent discovery 
requests because a party could ``game[]'' this requirement by 
submitting a skeletal initial discovery request with the intention of 
serving principal discovery requests at a later date. (ACC, TFI, & NITL 
NPRM Comment 4.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also argue that shippers should be 
permitted to include in their pre-filing notices discovery requests for 
``Core SAC Data,'' which Coal Shippers/NARUC describe as key categories 
of information shippers need to present a SAC case. (Coal Shippers/
NARUC NPRM Comments 30 & Attachment 1.) According to Coal Shippers/
NARUC, this requirement would allow carriers to begin collecting 
requested documents, expedite discovery, and eliminate the delay caused 
by ``carrier foot-dragging.'' (Id. at 30-32; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM 
Reply 13-14.)

[[Page 57373]]

    Additionally, both Coal Shippers/NARUC and ACC, TFI, and NITL 
suggest that the Board establish firm deadlines for defendant carriers 
to produce certain data. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 4; Coal 
Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 15.) ACC, TFI, and NITL argue that defendant 
carriers should be required to produce traffic data within 90 days of 
the initial discovery request. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 4-5.) 
Coal Shippers/NARUC argue that the defendant carrier(s) should be 
required to produce ``Core SAC Data'' no later than 70 days after 
receipt of the shipper's initial discovery requests.\8\ (Coal Shippers/
NARUC NPRM Comments 32.) NGFA supports Coal Shippers/NARUC's proposal, 
arguing that establishing a date for production of such data after the 
commencement of a formal complaint proceeding seems logical and 
efficient. (NGFA NPRM Reply 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under Coal Shippers/NARUC's proposal, the initial discovery 
requests would be filed (with the pre-filing notice) 40 days before 
the filing of the complaint, meaning the 70-day production deadline 
would fall 30 days after the filing of the formal complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both AAR and UP dispute the claims that railroads delay discovery. 
(AAR NPRM Reply 5-6; UP NPRM Reply 2.) They also both claim that 
production of discovery material in SAC cases, especially production of 
traffic data, is a resource- and time-intensive task, requiring the 
development of information not maintained in the ordinary course of 
business. (AAR NPRM Reply 7-8; UP NPRM Reply 2-3, V.S. Sanford 1 & 3.) 
According to UP, carriers should not be expected to begin compiling 
discovery material during the mediation period for several reasons. 
First, according to UP, doing so would effectively transform the pre-
filing notice into a complaint by immediately triggering discovery, yet 
ignoring the burdens involved in addressing disputes over the scope of 
discovery. Second, the proposal would cause a waste of resources if 
mediation succeeds. Third, parties may be able to resolve part of their 
dispute in mediation and narrow the scope of discovery. (UP NPRM Reply 
5-6.)
    Additionally, UP argues that the Board need not establish a firm 
discovery deadline because one already exists. (UP NPRM Reply 3 (``The 
rules establish a 150-day discovery period, followed by a 60-day period 
for preparing evidence.'').) According to UP, if the Board were to 
subdivide and micromanage the discovery period, the Board would 
generate more litigation by creating new types of disputes for the 
Board to resolve, imposing additional costs and delay. (Id.) UP also 
argues that shippers' timelines are unrealistic and assume that a 
railroad should produce traffic data without questioning the scope of a 
shipper's discovery requests. (UP NPRM Reply 3-4.) Additionally, UP 
notes that a defendant cannot begin producing traffic data until the 
geographical and temporal limits of a case are settled. (UP NPRM Reply 
2, V.S. Sanford 1 & 3.) AAR likewise argues that an ``arbitrary'' 
deadline for the production of ``Core SAC Data'' is unwarranted and 
impracticable given shipper groups' failure to provide any evidence in 
support of their ``foot-dragging'' claims and given the significant 
effort required of carriers to produce certain categories of ``Core SAC 
Data.'' (AAR NPRM Reply 5-8.)
    The final rule will adopt the proposal as set forth in the NPRM. 
The Board continues to believe that beginning discovery earlier in the 
rate review process (i.e., serving discovery requests with the 
complaint and answer) will help expedite discovery. These changes will 
eliminate the current potential gap between the filing of a complaint 
and the beginning of discovery, thus expediting both discovery and the 
rate case in general.
    The Board declines to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's recommendation 
that complainants be permitted to include discovery requests for ``Core 
SAC Data'' with their pre-filing notices. Because the scope of 
discovery could potentially evolve as parties proceed through 
mediation, the Board believes the appropriate time for parties to 
submit discovery requests is with the respective filings of the 
complaint and answer. Parties may resolve certain aspects of the 
dispute, such as the geographical and temporal limits for the case, and 
those agreements could significantly affect what data a party is 
required to produce and could render prior efforts to gather data 
superfluous.
    Additionally, because the Board's rules already provide a default 
procedural schedule for SAC cases that includes a 150-day deadline for 
the completion of discovery, the Board need not establish other interim 
discovery deadlines in this rulemaking. See 49 CFR 1111.8(a). The 
parties are free to--within the context of the Board's default 
procedural schedule or an agreed-upon procedural schedule--negotiate 
interim discovery deadlines on a case-by-case basis.
    Lastly, the Board declines to adopt the suggestion made by ACC, 
TFI, and NITL that the Board include a limit on subsequent discovery 
requests in the revised regulations. In accordance with 49 CFR 1103.27, 
the Board expects practitioners to exercise candor and fairness in 
dealing with other litigants. Attempts to ``game'' discovery 
requirements would contravene the canons of ethics governing 
practitioners before the Board. If a party believes subsequent 
discovery is overly broad or unduly burdensome, it may move to quash 
those requests. Additionally, the Board can, on its own initiative or 
at the request of a party, convene a staff conference to aid in 
resolving a discovery dispute.
    b. Meet-and-confer requirement. The Board also proposed in the NPRM 
to amend its regulations to require a party filing a motion to compel 
in a SAC or simplified standards case to certify that it has in good 
faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party serving discovery 
to settle the dispute without Board intervention. This requirement is 
similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
    Railroad and shipper interests generally support the Board's 
proposed meet-and-confer requirement. (AAR NPRM Comments 6-7; ACC, TFI, 
& NITL NPRM Comments 5; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 35; NGFA NPRM 
Comments 5; UP NPRM Reply 2.) Coal Shippers/NARUC ask the Board to 
clarify whether the proposed meet-and-confer obligation applies to 
requests for document production.\9\

[[Page 57374]]

(Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 36; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 
16; see also NGFA NPRM Reply 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Parties also raised the following arguments pertaining to 
regulations that apply to other Board proceedings besides rate 
cases.
     Coal Shippers/NARUC ask the Board to clarify whether 
the requirement in Sec.  1114.31(a) that motions to compel be filed 
with the Board within 10 days after the failure to obtain a 
responsive answer applies to requests for document production. (Coal 
Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 36-37; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 
3-4, 16; see also NGFA NPRM Reply 4.)
     AAR suggests the proposed meet-and-confer requirement 
should apply in all Board proceedings, not just rate cases. (AAR 
NPRM Comments 7 n.24; see also Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4, 
17.)
     ACC, TFI, and NITL ask the Board to clarify whether 
parties may continue to mutually agree to toll the 10-day period for 
filing motions to compel while they engage in negotiations and 
suggest that 30 days is a more realistic time line for filing 
motions to compel in SAC cases. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 5; 
see also Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 17.)
    In general, as noted in the ANPRM, the Board does not believe it 
is appropriate to make changes to regulations that would impact 
other proceedings in this rulemaking proceeding, which is 
specifically limited to procedures in rate cases.
    With respect to the concern from ACC, TFI, and NITL regarding 
agreements tolling the 10-day period, the Board believes that 10 
days is generally sufficient time to confer or attempt to confer 
with a party before filing a motion to compel under Sec.  
1114.31(a), and extending that period any further would 
unnecessarily delay discovery. If parties have conferred and are 
unable to reach a negotiated solution within 10 days, they may file 
a request for extension of time with the Board. Given the recent 
changes to the statutory deadlines for deciding rate cases, the 
Board finds it more appropriate to consider such requests in the 
context of the individual case than to incorporate a longer meet-
and-confer deadline into the Board's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that adding a 
meet-and-confer requirement modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
37 would encourage parties to resolve disputes without involving the 
Board, thus reducing the number of disputes that reach the Board, 
requiring fewer Board decisions, and avoiding potential delays in 
processing rate cases. As requested by Coal Shippers/NARUC, the Board 
will clarify in the final rule adopted here that the requirement that a 
party filing a motion to compel in a SAC or simplified standards case 
certify that it has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with 
the party serving discovery to settle the dispute without Board 
intervention will apply to all motions to compel.
    Evidentiary Submissions. The Board proposed several changes to its 
regulations governing the submission of evidence that were intended to 
improve and expedite the presentation of evidence in rate cases.
    a. Staggered filings and confidential designations. In the NPRM, 
the Board proposed changing its regulations to stagger the submission 
of confidential and public filings. Under the proposed rule, parties 
would submit highly confidential versions of the filings according to 
the procedural schedule, followed by public versions of those filings 
within three business days after the filing of the highly confidential 
versions. Additionally, the Board proposed standard identifying markers 
for the submission of confidential, highly confidential, and sensitive 
security information in both SAC and simplified standards rate 
cases.\10\ Specifically, the Board proposed that all confidential 
information be contained in single braces, i.e., {X{time} , all highly 
confidential information be contained in double braces, i.e., 
{{Y{time} {time} , and all sensitive security information be contained 
in triple braces, i.e., {{{Z{time} {time} {time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Protective orders in SAC cases generally distinguish 
between ``confidential,'' ``highly confidential,'' and ``sensitive 
security information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR and NGFA support the proposal to establish a standard 
convention for identifying confidential, highly confidential, and 
sensitive security information. (See AAR NPRM Comments 7; NGFA NPRM 
Comments 5.) AAR, Coal Shippers/NARUC, and NGFA also support the 
Board's proposal to stagger the submission of public and highly 
confidential versions of filings.\11\ (See AAR NPRM Comments 7; Coal 
Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 38; NGFA NPRM Comments 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Coal Shippers/NARUC qualify their support, noting that they 
do not object to the Board's proposal, provided that the Board 
limits the universe of ``confidential information'' so that it does 
not include highly confidential information that is reclassified as 
confidential to permit a party to see its own highly confidential 
information (e.g., where a shipper files a pleading with the Board 
that contains information that the railroad has designated as highly 
confidential, and the shipper's counsel agrees to reclassify the 
information as confidential vis-[agrave]-vis the railroad so that 
the railroad's counsel can disclose the information (which came from 
the railroad in the first instance) to the railroad's in-house 
personnel). (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 25-26, 38; Coal 
Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4, 18.) As the Board noted in the section 
related to the pre-complaint period, discussed above, the rules 
adopted here would not affect parties' ability to negotiate 
protective orders covering such circumstances, as is currently done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACC, TFI, and NITL do not object to this proposal but question 
whether it is feasible in practice. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 6.) 
Specifically, ACC, TFI, and NITL state that, if confidentiality 
designations are not made until after the highly confidential version 
has been filed, confidential versions would no longer identify 
confidential text; as such, parties will have to cross-reference the 
confidential versions with the redacted public versions to identify 
confidential text, a process they claim is cumbersome and creates risk 
of inadvertent disclosures of confidential information. (ACC, TFI, & 
NITL NPRM Comments 6; ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 8.) Coal Shippers/
NARUC, however, believe the Board's proposal would be feasible in 
practice and note that ACC, TFI, and NITL's feasibility concern appears 
to be premised on a scenario where the Board's proposal is interpreted 
as not requiring parties to make all bracket designations (i.e., highly 
confidential, confidential, and sensitive security information) when 
they make their initial filings with the Board containing this 
information. Coal Shippers/NARUC ask the Board to clarify its intent 
given ACC, TFI, and NITL's concern. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 19-
20.)
    The Board finds that the standard designations for confidential 
information will help eliminate any confusion caused by parties using 
different methods of identification and, accordingly, this proposal 
will be adopted in the final rules. The Board also continues to believe 
that the proposal to stagger the filing of confidential and public 
filings will be beneficial and, therefore, will adopt this proposal as 
well. However, the Board will provide clarification in response to ACC, 
TFI, and NITL's concern regarding the feasibility of staggering the 
filings. Under the NPRM, a party would submit, by the deadline set 
forth in the procedural schedule, the non-public (e.g., confidential, 
highly confidential) version(s) of its filing with the appropriate 
confidentiality designations around any confidential, highly 
confidential, and sensitive security information.\12\ In this fashion, 
a party's non-public version(s) will clearly designate what information 
is confidential, highly confidential, and sensitive security 
information. The non-public version(s) would not be posted to the 
Board's Web site. The party would then have an additional three days to 
redact the confidential, highly confidential, and sensitive security 
information from the document(s) it filed with the Board and submit a 
public version of the filing to the Board. Thus, all confidentiality 
designations would be included in the initial version(s) of the filing 
submitted to the Board by the procedural deadline, indicating which 
information is non-public and the degree of confidentiality assigned. 
Accordingly, parties would not need to cross-reference the non-public 
version(s) with the redacted public version(s) to identify confidential 
text, as ACC, TFI, and NITL suggest. Rather, the purpose of this 
requirement is to provide parties a reasonable amount of time to ensure 
confidentiality redactions are properly made after submitting the non-
public version(s) of each filing without delaying the case. To codify 
this clarification in the final rule, the Board will replace the phrase 
``highly confidential versions of filings'' with ``non-public (e.g., 
confidential, highly confidential) versions of filings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the Board's experience, parties to rate cases typically 
do not submit confidential versions of their filings in addition to 
the highly confidential and public versions. To the extent that only 
highly confidential and public versions are filed, parties should 
continue to identify all confidential, highly confidential, and 
sensitive security information in the ``highly confidential'' 
filing, properly identifying each type of information according to 
the convention described in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Limits on final briefs. In the NPRM, the Board proposed limiting 
the length of final briefs in SAC and Simplified-SAC cases to 30 pages, 
inclusive of exhibits.\13\ Coal Shippers/NARUC and NGFA generally 
support limits on the length of final briefs. (See ACC, TFI, & NITL 
NPRM Comments 7; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 38; NGFA NPRM 
Comments 5; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 21.)

[[Page 57375]]

AAR also supports limiting final briefs but suggests that the Board set 
a limit of 30 pages or 13,000 words, consistent with the Federal Rules 
of Appellate Procedure, to avoid gamesmanship regarding type fonts and 
margins. (AAR NPRM Comments 8.) Neither ACC, TFI, and NITL nor Coal 
Shippers/NARUC object to such a word limit, although Coal Shippers/
NARUC note that the Board's rules already contain standards governing 
document formatting and font sizes. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 8; 
Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4-5, 21-22.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Final briefs are not permitted under the procedural 
schedule in Three-Benchmark cases. See 49 CFR 1111.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACC, TFI, and NITL also suggest that the Board stagger the 
submission of final briefs so a complainant would file its final brief 
two weeks after the defendant files its final brief. (ACC, TFI, & NITL 
NPRM Comments 7.) According to ACC, TFI, and NITL, staggering briefs 
would ensure that complainants, who have the burden of proof, can 
respond to the defendant's final brief rather than simply reiterate 
their rebuttal. (Id.; see also Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4-5, 21; 
NGFA NPRM Reply 4.) UP urges the Board to reject ACC, TFI, and NITL's 
proposal because final briefs are not evidence. (UP NPRM Reply 8 
(citing NPRM, EP 733, slip op. at 9).) Similarly, AAR argues that a 
complainant that has not included improper new arguments or new 
evidence in its rebuttal evidence should have little need to ``react'' 
to a defendant's brief. (AAR NPRM Reply 8-10.) AAR also argues that 
staggering final briefs would make it harder for the Board to process 
cases expeditiously since the Board's deadline for deciding a case now 
runs from the filing of rebuttal evidence--not the filing of final 
briefs. (AAR NPRM Reply 8-10.)
    AAR also asks the Board to reiterate its commitment to policing 
improper rebuttal evidence, strictly enforcing those rules, and either 
relieving defendants from the brief limit when responding to improper 
rebuttal evidence or giving defendants an opportunity to file a 
separate document (not subject to the brief length limit) that responds 
to improper rebuttal evidence. (AAR NPRM Comments 8.) ACC, TFI, and 
NITL object to AAR's proposal, arguing that it would give railroads the 
right to decide unilaterally when there has been an improper rebuttal 
and relieve themselves of brief limits. ACC, TFI, and NITL further 
state that the Board already has procedures for dealing with improper 
rebuttal evidence through motions to strike. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM 
Reply 8.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also object to AAR's proposal, arguing 
that it would create a loophole that would defeat the purpose of the 
proposed rule and deprive shippers of procedural due process because 
shippers would not have an opportunity to respond to the carrier's 
claims of improper rebuttal. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 5, 22.)
    Lastly, NGFA recommends that the Board tailor final briefs to 
``specific issues of concern to the Board'' by determining whether 
final briefs are needed on a case-by-case basis and imposing even 
shorter page limits where the issues do not justify 30 pages. (NGFA 
NPRM Comments 5-6.) Both Coal Shippers/NARUC and ACC, TFI, and NITL 
state that they do not object to the Board determining on a case-by-
case bases the need for, and length of, final briefs. (ACC, TFI, & NITL 
NPRM Reply 9; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 4-5, 21.)
    The Board will adopt the proposed 30-page limit, inclusive of 
exhibits, on the length of final briefs in SAC and Simplified-SAC 
cases. The Board believes the page limit will encourage parties to 
focus their briefs on the most important issues. As the Board noted in 
the NPRM, it has on occasion, in individual cases, imposed page limits 
on final briefs. See, e.g., Consumers Energy Co. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 
NOR 42142, slip op. at 1 (STB served June 3, 2016); Total Petrochems. & 
Ref. USA, Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc., NOR 42121, slip op. at 4 (STB 
served Sept. 26, 2013). Based on the Board's prior experience in those 
cases, it believes 30 pages provides space sufficient for the parties 
to articulate their final concerns, but limited enough to prevent 
improper surrebuttal. The Board is not persuaded that a 13,000-word 
limit on final briefs, as proposed by AAR, is necessary to prevent 
gamesmanship regarding type fonts and margins. The Board's regulations 
already provide guidelines concerning document formatting and font 
sizes. See 49 CFR 1104.2 (``white paper not larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 
inches,'' ``double-spaced (except for footnotes and long quotations 
which may be single-spaced),'' ``using type not smaller than 12 
point'').
    The Board also declines to adopt ACC, TFI, and NITL's suggestion 
that the Board stagger the submission of final briefs. First, 
staggering final briefs would shorten the time between when final 
briefs are filed and when the Board must render a decision. Second, 
because parties are not permitted to raise new evidence or arguments in 
final briefs, a complainant need not respond to a defendant's final 
brief. Rather, final briefs are intended as a concise summary of the 
parties' positions to help focus the Board's analysis of the evidence 
and arguments and facilitate a more efficient resolution of outstanding 
issues. Nor will the Board adopt AAR's proposal to relieve defendants 
from the page limit to respond to improper rebuttal evidence or give 
defendants an opportunity to file a separate document when responding 
to improper rebuttal evidence. The Board agrees with ACC, TFI, and NITL 
that the Board's existing procedures for dealing with improper rebuttal 
evidence are sufficient.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the event of improper rebuttal evidence, a party may 
file a motion to strike or a request to file supplemental 
information to respond to the improper rebuttal evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Board noted in the NPRM, while the Board believes 
designating topics for final briefs could be beneficial, doing so would 
require an additional Board decision following the close of evidence. 
The Board remains concerned that this additional step would curtail the 
already shortened period available to the Board for issuing a decision 
on the merits in SAC cases. The case-by-case approach regarding the 
necessity of and length for briefs proposed by NGFA would similarly 
require an additional decision by the Board. As is already the case, 
if, following receipt of final briefs, the Board believes it requires 
additional information to reach its decision, the Board may request 
supplemental information from the parties.
    Interaction with Board Staff. In the NPRM, the Board proposed 
increasing staff involvement at all stages of a rate case, both through 
technical conferences/written questions and a Board-appointed liaison 
to the parties. This change was intended to reduce the number of 
disputes between the parties that can delay the resolution of cases. 
The Board proposed appointing a liaison to the parties within 10 
business days of the submission of the pre-filing notice in SAC cases, 
and within 10 business days of the filing of the complaint in 
Simplified-SAC and Three-Benchmark cases. The liaison would not be 
recused from handling substantive elements of the case. In addition, 
the Board proposed greater use of written questions from staff and 
technical conferences with the parties at every stage of the case. When 
a technical conference is requested by a party or parties or convened 
by the Board, the Board would provide advance notice of the topics to 
be discussed to promote an efficient and productive conference.
    ACC, TFI, and NITL support the Board's proposal, stating that a 
liaison will improve communications between the parties and with the 
Board, potentially resolve disagreements,

[[Page 57376]]

provide guidance on process, and keep the case moving forward through 
status conferences. (ACC, TFI, & NITL NPRM Comments 3-4.) NGFA also 
supports this proposal, noting that the proposed staff involvement 
contemplated by the NPRM, including the establishment of ground rules, 
issue-specific Board expectations, and a point of contact for questions 
about the process, could prove to be extremely useful to grain and 
other agricultural shippers in the event such a case is filed. (NGFA 
NPRM Comments 6.)
    Coal Shippers/NARUC also generally support the Board's proposal for 
increased staff involvement in rate cases, but suggest two 
modifications. (See Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 39.) First, Coal 
Shippers/NARUC argue that the Board should appoint the liaison after 
the shipper files its complaint. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 23.) 
According to Coal Shippers/NARUC, there is no need for the Board to 
appoint a staff liaison during the mediation period, and the 
appointment itself could cause confusion because the Board's rules call 
for the mediator to supervise the parties' mediation, not the liaison. 
(Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 26.) NGFA, however, disagrees, 
arguing that appointment of a liaison should be made during the pre-
filing phase to assist those parties that may be new to or unfamiliar 
with the rate-complaint process. (NGFA NPRM Reply 4-5.)
    Second, Coal Shippers/NARUC request the Board clarify that the 
parties and the liaison must abide by the Board's rules governing ex 
parte communications. (Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Comments 27.) 
Specifically, Coal Shippers/NARUC argue: (1) The liaison should be free 
to engage in joint communications with counsel for the parties as is 
done in technical conferences; (2) while it may not be necessary for 
the liaison to convene joint meetings at all times, all communications 
between the liaison and any of the parties to a case (e.g., letters, 
emails, and phone discussions) should be joint ones (e.g., conference 
calls where both parties participate, written communications copied to 
all parties, etc.); and (3) unless the parties otherwise agree, the 
parties should not be permitted to address the merits of the case (or 
case evidence) with the liaison and the liaison should not be permitted 
to address the merits of the case (or case evidence) with the parties. 
(Id. at 27-28; Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 23.)
    UP argues that the ex parte restrictions proposed by Coal Shippers/
NARUC are vague, would have a chilling effect on communications, and 
would undermine the usefulness of the staff liaison. (UP NPRM Reply 7.) 
Moreover, UP argues, the Board's ex parte regulations should address 
any concern shippers have. (Id.) Likewise, AAR argues that the Board's 
ex parte regulations do not require that ``all communications'' be 
joint ones because the ex parte regulations bar only communications 
``concerning the merits of the proceeding.'' (AAR NPRM Reply 4.) AAR 
states that to effectively and efficiently manage rate cases, the staff 
liaison occasionally may need to communicate separately with parties on 
procedural issues, and such communications violate neither the ex parte 
rules nor the rules' purpose of safeguarding due process. (Id.)
    AAR supports increased use of written questions and technical 
conferences and the appointment a staff liaison to a rate case; 
however, AAR asks the Board to clarify that the staff liaison and the 
appointed mediator would be two separate individuals. (AAR NPRM 
Comments 6; AAR NPRM Reply 3-4.) AAR further suggests the Board modify 
its regulations to delegate to the liaison the authority to convene a 
technical conference and to rule on issues raised in such conferences. 
(AAR NPRM Comments 6.) According to AAR, this modification would enable 
the liaison to facilitate negotiation among the parties while still 
providing a clear path for Board oversight, as the liaison's rulings 
would be subject to the appellate standards for interlocutory appeals 
under 49 CFR 1115.9(b). (Id.) ACC, TFI, and NITL do not endorse AAR's 
suggestion, arguing that if the Board were to adopt such a change, it 
should provide details in a subsequent rulemaking for public comment 
and any such proposal should address the division of responsibility 
between the liaison and administrative law judges. (ACC, TFI, & NITL 
NPRM Reply 4.) Coal Shippers/NARUC likewise object to AAR's proposal, 
arguing that it would delay Board consideration of rate cases and turn 
informal technical conferences into formal adversarial proceedings. 
(Coal Shippers/NARUC NPRM Reply 5, 25.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also note 
that AAR's proposal is at odds with the role the Board envisioned the 
liaison would perform. (Id. at 25 (citing NRPM, EP 733, slip op. at 9 
(the function of the liaison is ``to answer questions about the process 
and to intervene informally (e.g., hold status conferences) if it would 
help discovery or other matters move more smoothly'').))
    The Board will adopt the proposal in the NPRM. The Board continues 
to believe that increased communication between the parties and the 
Board will increase the efficiency of processing rate cases. The Board 
also believes that the appropriate time to appoint the liaison is 
following the submission of the shipper's pre-filing notice. As the 
Board noted in the NPRM, the goal of the liaison is to increase staff 
involvement at all stages of a rate cases, which would begin with the 
newly created pre-complaint period. The Board does not agree with Coal 
Shippers/NARUC that the appointment of a liaison would cause confusion 
with the mediator. The liaison and mediator will be clearly identified 
and distinct individuals, and the liaison will not participate in the 
mediation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Because the liaison would not participate in the mediation, 
the liaison would not be recused from handling substantive elements 
of the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Board will clarify that the liaison would be required 
to comply with the Board's ex parte regulations. See 49 CFR 1102.2; see 
also Ex Parte Commc'ns in Informal Rulemaking Proceedings, EP 739 (STB 
served Sept. 28, 2017) (proposing modifications to the Board's ex parte 
regulations in informal rulemaking proceedings). See 82 FR 45771 (Oct. 
2, 2017). The Board is committed to ensuring that rate case 
proceedings, including the new liaison role, are conducted in a 
transparent and fair manner. Coal Shippers/NARUC have not provided any 
reason to believe that the Board's regulations would be ineffective; 
therefore, the Board finds no reason to expand its ex parte 
restrictions in rate case proceedings as suggested by Coal Shippers/
NARUC.
    Additionally, AAR's suggestion that the Board delegate to the 
liaison the authority to rule on issues exceeds the intended scope of 
the liaison's role. As noted in the NPRM, the liaison is intended to 
``answer questions about the process and to intervene informally (e.g., 
hold status conferences) if it would help discovery or other matters 
move more smoothly.'' NPRM, EP 733, slip op. at 9. The liaison's role 
would be to work with parties to help primarily with procedural issues 
that arise through the processing of a rate case.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Board also notes that its regulations already include 
mechanisms to expedite resolution of some issues. See, e.g., 49 CFR 
1011.6(c)(3) (delegating to the Director of the Board's Office of 
Proceedings, among other things, the authority to dispose of routine 
procedural matters in proceedings assigned for handling under 
modified procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Comments. In addition to commenting on these specific 
proposals, some parties have also raised more general comments on how 
the Board could expedite rate cases. AAR notes certain internal reforms 
that could aid the Board in expediting rate case

[[Page 57377]]

litigation without the need for changes to the Board's rules. (AAR NPRM 
Comments 10.) Specifically, AAR cites to five recommendations of the 
Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the 
University of Denver: (1) Setting firm dates early in the pretrial 
process for the close of discovery, the filing of dispositive motions, 
and trial, and maintaining those dates except in rare and truly unusual 
circumstances; (2) ruling expeditiously on motions, even when the 
motions are denied; (3) limiting the number of extensions sought by the 
parties during any phase of the case; (4) working to foster a local 
legal culture that accepts efficient case processing as the norm, and 
enforcing that culture through active judicial case management; and (5) 
tracking the status of cases and motions through internal statistical 
reporting, and disseminating the results internally and externally as 
appropriate. (AAR NPRM Comments 8, 8 n.28. (citing Civil Case 
Processing in the Federal District Courts, Inst. for the Advancement of 
the Am. Legal Sys. 9-10 (2009), http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/iaals_civil_case_processing_in_the_federal_district_courts_0.pdf).) 
ACC, TFI, and NITL similarly argue that the Board should enforce 
deadlines for completing discovery and grant extensions of time only in 
extraordinary circumstances and for the shortest possible time. (ACC, 
TFI, & NITL NPRM Reply 9.) The Board appreciates that the parties 
offered these additional recommendations. The Board is committed to 
processing rate cases as expeditiously as possible, and agrees that it 
is important to timely rule on motions and grant extensions of time 
judiciously.

The Final Rule

    The final rule adopted by the Board here contains changes to the 
Board's regulations at 49 CFR parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130, 
which are set out below. The final rule would amend the existing 
procedures for filing and litigating a rate case, as directed by 
section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act. While the rules adopted here 
are largely in response to section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act, 
the Board intends to continue to review its rate regulations so that it 
may propose additional improvements to its rate review process in a 
subsequent rulemaking proceeding.
    Pre-Complaint Period. The final rule includes changes creating and 
detailing a pre-complaint period in SAC cases, which is intended to 
provide parties an opportunity to mediate the dispute free from the 
distraction of litigation and take steps in preparation for litigation 
before the filing of the complaint.
    1. Pre-filing Notice. The Board creates a pre-complaint period in a 
new 49 CFR 1111.1 by requiring a SAC complainant to submit a pre-filing 
notice at least 70 days prior to filing its complaint.\17\ The pre-
filing notice shall contain the rate and origin/destination pair(s) to 
be challenged, the commodities at issue, and a motion for protective 
order pursuant to newly created 49 CFR 1104.14(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ To accommodate the new Sec.  1111.1, the existing 
Sec. Sec.  1111.1-1111.10 will be redesignated as Sec. Sec.  1111.2-
1111.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Mandatory Mediation. The Board revises 49 CFR 1109.4 to move 
mandatory mediation in SAC cases to the pre-complaint period. This 
change to the regulations would not impose new requirements but would 
require mediation to take place earlier to allow parties to focus on 
the mediation process without the distractions of fully active 
litigation. The Board intends for mediation to be complete prior to the 
filing of the complaint; however, consistent with current procedures, 
the rules will allow for an extension of time via Board order. 
Additionally, the Board revises its regulations to provide that it will 
assign one or more mediators to a case within 5 business days after the 
shipper submits its pre-filing notice (rather than the 10-business day 
period currently in place).
    3. Appointment of a Board Liaison to the Parties. The Board will 
require the appointment of a liaison to the parties within 10 business 
days of the complainant's submission of the pre-filing notice in SAC 
cases pursuant to new 49 CFR 1111.1(b) and in cases using simplified 
standards pursuant to newly redesignated 49 CFR 1111.10(a).
    Discovery. The final rule also includes changes to the Board's 
discovery regulations intended to streamline discovery in rate cases.
    1. Initial Discovery Requests. The Board will add 49 CFR 1111.2(f) 
and amend 49 CFR 1114.21(d) & (f) to require a complainant in a SAC 
proceeding to certify that it has served its initial discovery requests 
simultaneously with its complaint. The Board also will add 49 CFR 
1111.5(f) and amend 49 CFR 1114.21(d) & (f) to require a defendant in a 
SAC proceeding to certify that it has served its initial discovery 
requests simultaneously with its answer. To address the filing of an 
amended or supplemental complaint, the Board will amend the newly 
redesignated 49 CFR 1111.3(b) to require the complainant to certify 
that it has served on the defendant any new or modified discovery 
requests affected by the amended or supplemental complaint, if any. The 
Board will adopt a corresponding requirement at 49 CFR 1111.5(f), in 
which a defendant responding to an amended or supplemental complaint 
must certify that it has served on the complainant any new or modified 
discovery requests affected by the amended or supplemental complaint, 
if any.
    2. Meet-and-Confer Requirement. The Board will amend 49 CFR 
1114.31(a)(2) to require that all motions to compel in SAC cases and 
cases filed under simplified standards include a certification that the 
party filing the motion has in good faith conferred or attempted to 
confer with the party failing to answer discovery to settle the dispute 
over those terms without Board intervention.
    Evidentiary Submissions. The final rule includes changes to the 
Board's regulations governing the submission of evidence intended to 
improve and expedite the presentation of evidence in rate cases.
    1. Stagger the Submission of Public and Highly Confidential 
Versions of Filings. In both SAC and simplified standards cases, the 
Board will allow parties to submit non-public (e.g., confidential, 
highly confidential) versions of the filings according to the 
procedural schedule in a particular case, and submit public versions of 
those filings within three business days after the filing of the non-
public versions.
    2. Standard Convention for Identifying Confidential, Highly 
Confidential, and Sensitive Security Information. The Board will revise 
49 CFR 1104.14 to create standard identifying markers set forth in 
protective orders for the submission of confidential, highly 
confidential, and sensitive security information in rate cases. The 
standard identifying markers are as follows: All confidential 
information will be contained in single braces, i.e., {X{time} , all 
highly confidential information will be contained in double braces, 
i.e., {{Y{time} {time} , and all sensitive security information will be 
contained in triple braces, i.e., {{{Z{time} {time} {time} .
    3. Limits on Final Briefs. The Board will limit the length of final 
briefs to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits, in SAC and Simplified-SAC 
cases.
    Technical Modifications. The Board adopts two technical 
modifications to the existing regulations. Specifically, the Board will 
amend the newly redesignated 49 CFR 1111.11(b) (requiring parties to 
meet at the beginning of the case to discuss procedural matters) to 
clarify that its requirements also apply to SAC cases.

[[Page 57378]]

The Board also will amend 49 CFR 1130.1 to include the correct 
reference to the newly redesignated 49 CFR 1111.2(a).
    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).
    In the NPRM, the Board certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.\18\ 
The Board explained that the proposed changes to its regulations would 
not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. Rather, the 
changes proposed would be largely procedural or would codify existing 
practice, and would not have a significant economic impact on small 
entities. Additionally, the Board noted that, since the inception of 
the Board in 1996, only three of the 51 filed cases challenging the 
reasonableness of freight rail rates involved a Class III rail carrier 
as a defendant. Those three cases involved a total of 13 Class III rail 
carriers. The Board estimated that there are approximately 656 Class 
III rail carriers. Therefore, the Board certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 
that these proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis 
for rail carriers subject to Board jurisdiction, the Board defines a 
``small business'' as only those rail carriers classified as Class 
III rail carriers 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). See 81 FR 
42566 (June 30, 2016). Class III carriers have annual operating 
revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 dollars, or $35,809,698 or 
less when adjusted for inflation using 2016 data. Class II rail 
carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $250 million in 
1991 dollars or less than $447,621,226 when adjusted for inflation 
using 2016 data. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor 
annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its Web 
site. 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule adopted here revises the rules proposed in the NPRM; 
however, the same basis for the Board's certification of the proposed 
rule applies to the final rule. The final rule will not create a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as the 
regulations do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small 
entities. Thus, the Board again certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
the final 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.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. In this proceeding, the Board is modifying 
an existing collection of information that is currently approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through May 31, 2020, under OMB 
Control No. 2140-0029. In the NPRM, the Board sought comments pursuant 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3549, and Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3) 
regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information, as modified in 
the proposed rule and further described below, 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. No comments were received pertaining to 
the collection of this information under the PRA.
    This modification to an existing collection will be submitted to 
OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 
1320.11.
    It is ordered:
    1. The Board adopts the final rule as set forth in this decision. 
Notice of the adopted rule will be published in the Federal Register.
    2. This decision is effective December 30, 2017.
    3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 1104

    Administrative practice and procedure.

49 CFR Part 1109

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Motor 
carriers, Railroads.

49 CFR Part 1111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.

49 CFR Part 1114

    Administrative practice and procedure.

49 CFR Part 1130

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Decided: November 29, 2017.
    By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface 
Transportation Board amends title 49, chapter X, parts 1104, 1109, 
1111, 1114, and 1130 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1104--FILING WITH THE BOARD-COPIES-VERIFICATION-SERVICE-
PLEADINGS, GENERALLY

0
1. The authority citation for part 1104 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  5.U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 
1321.


0
2. In Sec.  1104.14, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1104.14   Protective orders to maintain confidentiality.

* * * * *
    (c) Requests for protective orders in stand-alone cost and 
simplified standards cases. A motion for protective order in stand-
alone cost and simplified standards cases shall specify that 
evidentiary submissions will designate confidential material within 
single braces (i.e., {X{time} ), highly confidential material within 
double braces (i.e., {{Y{time} {time} ), and sensitive security 
information within triple braces (i.e., {{{Z{time} {time} {time} ). In 
stand-alone cost cases, the motion for protective order shall be filed 
together with the notice pursuant to 49 CFR 1111.1.

PART 1109--USE OF MEDIATION IN BOARD PROCEEDINGS

0
3. The authority citation for part 1109 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.

[[Page 57379]]


0
4. In Sec.  1109.4, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1109.4  Mandatory mediation in rate cases to be considered under 
the stand-alone cost methodology.

    (a) Mandatory use of mediation. A shipper seeking rate relief from 
a railroad or railroads in a case involving the stand-alone cost 
methodology must engage in non-binding mediation of its dispute with 
the railroad upon submitting a pre-filing notice under 49 CFR part 
1111.
    (b) Assignment of mediators. Within 5 business days after the 
shipper submits its pre-filing notice, the Board will assign one or 
more mediators to the case. Within 5 business days of the assignment to 
mediate, the mediator(s) shall contact the parties to discuss ground 
rules and the time and location of any meeting.
* * * * *
    (g) Procedural schedule. Absent a specific order from the Board 
granting an extension, the mediation will not affect the procedural 
schedule in stand-alone cost rate cases set forth at 49 CFR 1111.9(a).

0
5. Part 1111 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1111--COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

Sec.
1111.1 Pre-filing procedures in stand-alone cost cases.
1111.2 Content of formal complaints; joinder.
1111.3 Amended and supplemental complaints.
1111.4 Service.
1111.5 Answers and cross complaints.
1111.6 Motions to dismiss or to make more definite.
1111.7 Satisfaction of complaint.
1111.8 Investigations on the Board's own motion.
1111.9 Procedural schedule in stand-alone cost cases.
1111.10 Procedural schedule in cases using simplified standards.
1111.11 Meeting to discuss procedural matters.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 10704, 11701, and 1321.


Sec.  1111.1  Pre-filing procedures in stand-alone cost cases.

    (a) General. At least 70 days prior to the proposed filing of a 
complaint challenging the reasonableness of a rail rate based on stand-
alone cost, complainant shall file a notice with the Board. The notice 
shall:
    (1) Identify the rate to be challenged;
    (2) Identify the origin/destination pair(s) to be challenged;
    (3) Identify the affected commodities; and
    (4) Include a motion for protective order as set forth at 49 CFR 
1104.14(c).
    (b) Liaison. Within 10 days of the filing of the pre-filing notice, 
the Board shall appoint a liaison to the parties.


Sec.  1111.2  Content of formal complaints; joinder.

    (a) General. A formal complaint must contain the correct, 
unabbreviated names and addresses of each complainant and defendant. It 
should set forth briefly and in plain language the facts upon which it 
is based. It should include specific reference to pertinent statutory 
provisions and Board regulations, and should advise the Board and the 
defendant fully in what respects these provisions or regulations have 
been violated. The complaint should contain a detailed statement of the 
relief requested. Relief in the alternative or of several different 
types may be demanded, but the issues raised in the formal complaint 
should not be broader than those to which complainant's evidence is to 
be directed. In a complaint challenging the reasonableness of a rail 
rate, the complainant should indicate whether, in its view, the 
reasonableness of the rate should be examined using constrained market 
pricing or using the simplified standards adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
10701(d)(3). If the complainant seeks to use the simplified standards, 
it should support this request by submitting, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (1) The carrier or region identifier.
    (2) The type of shipment (local, received-terminated, etc.).
    (3) The one-way distance of the shipment.
    (4) The type of car (by URCS code).
    (5) The number of cars.
    (6) The car ownership (private or railroad).
    (7) The commodity type (STCC code).
    (8) The weight of the shipment (in tons per car).
    (9) The type of movement (individual, multi-car, or unit train).
    (10) A narrative addressing whether there is any feasible 
transportation alternative for the challenged movements.
    (11) For matters for which voluntary, binding arbitration is 
available pursuant to 49 CFR part 1108, the complaint shall state that 
arbitration was considered, but rejected, as a means of resolving the 
dispute.
    (b) Disclosure with simplified standards complaint. The complainant 
must provide to the defendant all documents relied upon in formulating 
its assessment of a feasible transportation alternative and all 
documents relied upon to determine the inputs to the URCS Phase III 
program.
    (c) Multiple causes of action. Two or more grounds of complaint 
concerning the same principle, subject, or statement of facts may be 
included in one complaint, but should be stated and numbered 
separately.
    (d) Joinder. Two or more complainants may join in one complaint 
against one or more defendants if their respective causes of action 
concern substantially the same alleged violations and like facts.
    (e) Request for access to waybill data. Parties needing access to 
the Waybill Sample to prepare their case should follow the procedures 
set forth at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    (f) Discovery in stand-alone cost cases. Upon filing its complaint, 
the complainant shall certify that it has served its initial discovery 
requests on the defendant.


Sec.  1111.3  Amended and supplemental complaints.

    (a) Generally. An amended or supplemental complaint may be tendered 
for filing by a complainant against a defendant or defendants named in 
the original complaint, stating a cause of action alleged to have 
accrued within the statutory period immediately preceding the date of 
such tender, in favor of complainant and against the defendant or 
defendants. The time limits for responding to an amended or 
supplemental complaint are computed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1111.5 and 
1111.6, as if the amended or supplemental complaint was an original 
complaint.
    (b) Stand-alone cost. If a complainant tenders an amended or 
supplemental complaint in a stand-alone cost case, the complainant 
shall certify that it has served on the defendant those initial 
discovery requests affected by the amended or supplemental complaint, 
if any.
    (c) Simplified standards. A complaint filed under the simplified 
standards may be amended once before the filing of opening evidence to 
opt for a different rate reasonableness methodology, among Three-
Benchmark, Simplified-SAC, or Full-SAC. If so amended, the procedural 
schedule begins again under the new methodology as set forth at 
Sec. Sec.  1111.9 and 1111.10. However, only one mediation period per 
complaint shall be required.


Sec.  1111.4  Service.

    A complainant is responsible for serving formal complaints, amended 
or supplemental complaints, and cross complaints on the defendant(s). 
Service

[[Page 57380]]

shall be made by sending a copy of such complaint to the chief legal 
officer of each defendant by either confirmed facsimile and first-class 
mail or express overnight courier. The cover page of each such 
facsimile and the front of each such first-class mail or overnight 
express courier envelope shall include the following legend: ``Service 
of STB Complaint''. Service of the complaint shall be deemed completed 
on the date on which the complaint is served by confirmed facsimile or, 
if service is made by express overnight courier, on the date such 
complaint is actually received by the defendant. When the complaint 
involves more than one defendant, service of the complaint shall be 
deemed completed on the date on which all defendants have been served. 
An original and ten copies of the complaint should be filed with the 
Board together with an acknowledgment of service by the persons served 
or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner 
of service, of the names of the persons served, and of the addresses to 
which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified 
by the person who made service. If complainant cannot serve the 
complaint, an original of each complaint accompanied by a sufficient 
number of copies to enable the Board to serve one upon each defendant 
and to retain 10 copies in addition to the original should be filed 
with the Board.


Sec.  1111.5  Answers and cross complaints.

    (a) Generally. An answer shall be filed within the time provided in 
paragraph (c) of this section. An answer should be responsive to the 
complaint and should fully advise the Board and the parties of the 
nature of the defense. In answering a complaint challenging the 
reasonableness of a rail rate, the defendant should indicate whether it 
will contend that the Board is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the 
complaint because the revenue-variable cost percentage generated by the 
traffic is less than 180 percent, or the traffic is subject to 
effective product or geographic competition. In response to a complaint 
filed under the simplified standards, the answer must include the 
defendant's preliminary estimate of the variable cost of each 
challenged movement calculated using the unadjusted figures produced by 
the URCS Phase III program.
    (b) Disclosure with simplified standards answer. The defendant must 
provide to the complainant all documents that it relied upon to 
determine the inputs used in the URCS Phase III program.
    (c) Time for filing; copies; service. An answer must be filed 
within 20 days after the service of the complaint or within such 
additional time as the Board may provide. The original and 10 copies of 
an answer must be filed with the Board. The defendant must serve copies 
of the answer upon the complainant and any other defendants.
    (d) Cross complaints. A cross complaint alleging violations by 
other parties to the proceeding or seeking relief against them may be 
filed with the answer. An answer to a cross complaint shall be filed 
within 20 days after the service date of the cross complaint. The party 
shall serve copies of an answer to a cross complaint upon the other 
parties.
    (e) Failure to answer complaint. Averments in a complaint are 
admitted when not denied in an answer to the complaint.
    (f) Discovery in stand-alone cost cases. Upon filing its answer, 
the defendant shall certify that it has served its initial discovery 
requests on the complainant. If the complainant tenders an amended or 
supplemental complaint to which the defendant must reply, upon filing 
the answer to the amended or supplemental complaint, the defendant 
shall certify that it has served on the complainant those initial 
discovery requests affected by the amended or supplemental complaint, 
if any.


Sec.  1111.6  Motions to dismiss or to make more definite.

    An answer to a complaint or cross complaint may be accompanied by a 
motion to dismiss the complaint or cross complaint or a motion to make 
the complaint or cross complaint more definite. A motion to dismiss can 
be filed at anytime during a proceeding. A complainant or cross 
complainant may, within 10 days after an answer is filed, file a motion 
to make the answer more definite. Any motion to make more definite must 
specify the defects in the particular pleading and must describe fully 
the additional information or details thought to be necessary.


Sec.  1111.7  Satisfaction of complaint.

    If a defendant satisfies a formal complaint, either before or after 
answering, a statement to that effect signed by the complainant must be 
filed (original only need be filed), setting forth when and how the 
complaint has been satisfied. This action should be taken as 
expeditiously as possible.


Sec.  1111.8  Investigations on the Board's own motion.

    (a) Service of decision. A decision instituting an investigation on 
the Board's own motion will be served by the Board upon respondents.
    (b) Default. If within the time period stated in the decision 
instituting an investigation, a respondent fails to comply with any 
requirement specified in the decision, the respondent will be deemed in 
default and to have waived any further proceedings, and the 
investigation may be decided forthwith.


Sec.  1111.9  Procedural schedule in stand-alone cost cases.

    (a) Procedural schedule. Absent a specific order by the Board, the 
following general procedural schedule will apply in stand-alone cost 
cases after the pre-complaint period initiated by the pre-filing 
notice:
    (1) Day 0--Complaint filed, discovery period begins.
    (2) Day 7 or before--Conference of the parties convened pursuant to 
Sec.  1111.11(b).
    (3) Day 20--Defendant's answer to complaint due.
    (4) Day 150--Discovery completed.
    (5) Day 210--Complainant files opening evidence on absence of 
intermodal and intramodal competition, variable cost, and stand-alone 
cost issues.
    (6) Day 270--Defendant files reply evidence to complainant's 
opening evidence.
    (7) Day 305--Complainant files rebuttal evidence to defendant's 
reply evidence.
    (8) Day 335--Complainant and defendant file final briefs.
    (9) Day 485 or before--The Board issues its decision.
    (b) Staggered filings; final briefs. (1) The parties may submit 
non-public (e.g., confidential, highly confidential) versions of 
filings on the dates identified in the procedural schedule, and submit 
public versions of those filings within three business days thereafter.
    (2) Final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
    (c) Conferences with parties. (1) The Board will convene a 
technical conference of the parties with Board staff prior to the 
filing of any evidence in a stand-alone cost rate case, for the purpose 
of reaching agreement on the operating characteristics that are used in 
the variable cost calculations for the movements at issue. The parties 
should jointly propose a schedule for this technical conference.
    (2) In addition, the Board may convene a conference of the parties 
with Board staff, after discovery requests are served but before any 
motions to compel may be filed, to discuss discovery matters in stand-
alone cost rate cases.

[[Page 57381]]

The parties should jointly propose a schedule for this discovery 
conference.


Sec.  1111.10  Procedural schedule in cases using simplified standards.

    (a) Procedural schedule. Absent a specific order by the Board, the 
following general procedural schedules will apply in cases using the 
simplified standards:
    (1)(i) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology:
    (A) Day 0--Complaint filed (including complainant's disclosure).
    (B) Day 10--Mediation begins.
    (C) Day 20--Defendant's answer to complaint (including defendant's 
initial disclosure).
    (D) Day 30--Mediation ends; discovery begins.
    (E) Day 140--Defendant's second disclosure.
    (F) Day 150--Discovery closes.
    (G) Day 220--Opening evidence.
    (H) Day 280--Reply evidence.
    (I) Day 310--Rebuttal evidence.
    (J) Day 320--Technical conference (market dominance and merits).
    (K) Day 330--Final briefs.
    (ii) In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 
business days of the filing of the complaint.
    (2)(i) In cases relying upon the Three-Benchmark methodology:
    (A) Day 0--Complaint filed (including complainant's disclosure).
    (B) Day 10--Mediation begins. (STB production of unmasked Waybill 
Sample.)
    (C) Day 20--Defendant's answer to complaint (including defendant's 
initial disclosure).
    (D) Day 30--Mediation ends; discovery begins.
    (E) Day 60--Discovery closes.
    (F) Day 90--Complainant's opening (initial tender of comparison 
group and opening evidence on market dominance). Defendant's opening 
(initial tender of comparison group).
    (G) Day 95--Technical conference on comparison group.
    (H) Day 120--Parties' final tenders on comparison group. 
Defendant's reply on market dominance.
    (I) Day 150--Parties' replies to final tenders. Complainant's 
rebuttal on market dominance.
    (ii) In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 
business days of the filing of the complaint.
    (b) Staggered filings; final briefs. (1) The parties may submit 
non-public (e.g., confidential, highly confidential) versions of 
filings on the dates identified in the procedural schedule, and submit 
public versions of those filings within three business days thereafter.
    (2) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology, final 
briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
    (c) Defendant's second disclosure. In cases using the Simplified-
SAC methodology, the defendant must make the following disclosures to 
the complainant by Day 170 of the procedural schedule.
    (1) Identification of all traffic that moved over the routes 
replicated by the SARR in the Test Year.
    (2) Information about those movements, in electronic format, 
aggregated by origin-destination pair and shipper, showing the origin, 
destination, volume, and total revenues from each movement.
    (3) Total operating and equipment cost calculations for each of 
those movements, provided in electronic format.
    (4) Revenue allocation for the on-SARR portion of each cross-over 
movement in the traffic group provided in electronic format.
    (5) Total trackage rights payments paid or received during the Test 
Year associated with the route replicated by the SARR.
    (6) All workpapers and documentation necessary to support the 
calculations.
    (d) Conferences with parties. The Board may convene a conference of 
the parties with Board staff to facilitate voluntary resolution of 
discovery disputes and to address technical issues that may arise.
    (e) Complaint filed with a petition to revoke a class exemption. If 
a complaint is filed simultaneously with a petition to revoke a class 
exemption, the Board will take no action on the complaint and the 
procedural schedule will be held in abeyance automatically until the 
petition to revoke is adjudicated.


Sec.  1111.11  Meeting to discuss procedural matters.

    (a) Generally. In all complaint proceedings, other than those 
challenging the reasonableness of a rail rate based on stand-alone cost 
or the simplified standards, the parties shall meet, or discuss by 
telephone, discovery and procedural matters within 12 days after an 
answer to a complaint is filed. Within 19 days after an answer to a 
complaint is filed, the parties, either jointly or separately, shall 
file a report with the Board setting forth a proposed procedural 
schedule to govern future activities and deadlines in the case.
    (b) Stand-alone cost or simplified standards complaints. In 
complaints challenging the reasonableness of a rail rate based on 
stand-alone cost or the simplified standards, the parties shall meet, 
or discuss by telephone or through email, discovery and procedural 
matters within 7 days after the complaint is filed in stand-alone cost 
cases, and 7 days after the mediation period ends in simplified 
standards cases. The parties should inform the Board as soon as 
possible thereafter whether there are unresolved disputes that require 
Board intervention and, if so, the nature of such disputes.

PART 1114--EVIDENCE; DISCOVERY

0
6. The authority citation for part 1114 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.

0
7. In Sec.  1114.21, revise paragraph (d) and the first sentence of 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1114.21  Applicability; general provisions.

* * * * *
    (d) Sequence and timing of discovery. Unless the Board upon motion, 
and subject to the requirements at 49 CFR 1111.2(f) and 1111.5(f) in 
stand-alone cost cases, for the convenience of parties and witnesses 
and in the interest of justice, orders otherwise, methods of discovery 
may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting 
discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, should not operate to 
delay any party's discovery.
* * * * *
    (f) Service of discovery materials. Unless otherwise ordered by the 
Board, and subject to the requirements at 49 CFR 1111.2(f) and 
1111.5(f) in stand-alone cost cases, depositions, interrogatories, 
requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and 
responses thereto, shall be served on other counsel and parties, but 
shall not be filed with the Board. * * *

0
8. In Sec.  1114.31, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  1114.31  Failure to respond to discovery.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Motions to compel in stand-alone cost and simplified standards 
rate cases. (i) Motions to compel in stand-alone cost and simplified 
standards rate cases must include a certification that the movant has 
in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party 
failing to answer discovery to obtain it without Board intervention.
    (ii) In a rate case to be considered under the stand-alone cost or 
simplified standards methodologies, a reply to a motion to compel must 
be filed with the Board within 10 days of when the motion to compel is 
filed.
* * * * *

[[Page 57382]]

PART 1130--INFORMAL COMPLAINTS

0
9. The authority citation for part 1130 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), 14709.


0
10. In Sec.  1130.1, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1130.1  When no damages sought.

    (a) Form and content; copies. Informal complaint may be by letter 
or other writing and will be serially numbered and filed. The complaint 
must contain the essential elements of a formal complaint as specified 
at 49 CFR 1111.2 and may embrace supporting papers. The original and 
one copy must be filed with the Board.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-26153 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P