CONCLUSION
As we enter an era of further decreasing transportation regulation with the enactment
of the ICCTA, rural agricultural businesses and communities will look to the Board, as they
| did the ICC, as an accessible and affordable forum to settle their rail transportation disputes.
USDA believes that fees charged by the Board for its services and activities should be
affordable for those who feel they have a legitimate claim. The fee increases and new fees

proposed by the Board, however, may result in denial of Board services to shippers of modest

means.

Respectfully Submitted,

prell CC? -

ew Lon Hatamiya
Administrator

Agricultural Marketing Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250


3

percent, from $1,000 to $233,200, for bringing a complaint of unreasonable rates before the
Board be considered reasonable? Other standard complaints are being increased from $1,000
to $23,100. For a shipper requesting the Board to set terms and conditions for the sale or
subsidy of a branch line proposed for abandonment, the Board is asking a new fee of $12,700.
These are prohibitive fees for all but the largest and most well-financed businesses who ship
by rail. Small to medium-sized agricultural rail shipping establishments, who are often
located in rural, economically depressed regions and communities, simply cannot afford to pay
such exorbitant fees. |
According to this rulemaking, the Board states that the proposed schedule of new and
increased fees will not significantly impact economically on a substantial number of small
entities. The fee waiver provisions as provided in current regulations in CFR 1002.2 (e}
would apply for those entities which can prove financial hardship. What standards will the
Board use to judge financial hardship of individual shippers? Fear of being denied a waiver
may deter smaller shippers from preparing a rate complaint. Will large and smail shippers
alike be subject to the same standards? What about shippers of modest means who do not
qualify for a fee waiver? USDA has been advised by several rural agricultural shipper
organizations that considerable cost is involved just in preparing a complaint for Beard
consideration. For example, the expense of hiring cost consultants and attommeys to properly
prepare a rate complaint is costly for these shippers. Those shippers who can afford these
preparation expenses would then be faced with tremendous fee increases and new fees in

order to seek redress before the Board, the only avenue available to them.


BEFORE THE

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Ex Parte No. 542

REGULATIONS GOVERNING FEES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED
IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSING AND RELATED SERVICES---1996 UPDATE

COMMENTS OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

rs
REE WEG

Ce
MAY 6 1996.)

Sumo Lon Hatamiya
as az Administrator
5 oO — KD
. MTR Agricultural Marketing Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 26250

Date: May 6, 1996


BEFORE THE

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BO.

Ex Parte No. 542

REGULATIONS GOVERNING FEES FOR SERVICE PERFORMED
IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSING AND RELATED SERVICES---1996 UPDATE

COMMENTS OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

These comments are filed on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and are in response to the Surface Transportation Board’s (Board) proposal to revise
and modify its fee schedule and to adopt new fees for services and activities that have not

previously been included in the Board's user fee schedule.

AUTHORITY AND INTEREST

Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 US.C. 1291) and the Agricultural
Marketing Aci of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622 G)), Congress has directed and authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to participate in proceedings before the Board to “assist in improving
transportation services and facilities...for agricultural products and farm supplies” and to make
“complaint or petition to the Board_..with respect to rates, charges, tariffs, practices and
services....” In addition, through the operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA

is a major participant in the markets for agricultural products.



2

Under the Rural Development Act of 1972, (Public Law 92-419; 86-657) as amended
by the Rural Development Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-355; 94 Stat. 1171), USDA is also
responsible for “coordinating a nationwide rural development program.” As part of this
responsibility, USDA is to prepare a rural development strategy taking into consideration the
need to improve, among other things, transportation, community services, community
facilities, and businesses and employment opportunities. Because the proposed fee increases
and new fees will affect the agricultural shipping community, many of which are small to
medium-sized businesses located in rural regions and communities, USDA has an interest in
this proceeding.

In 1974, USDA told the Interstate Commerce Cormmmission (ICC) in Ex Parte 522
Report On Interstate Commerce Commission Functions, that of particular importance to the
Department were the ICC’s functions relative to oversight of rate reasonableness, line
abandonments, and rail mergers. USDA said that although regulatory reform measures had
restricted the ability of shippers to protest the reasonableness of railroad rates, and also
restricted the authority of the ICC to adjudicate rate reasonableness, retention of oversight
authority for the agency was valued by agricultural shippers. Agricultural shippers, we
commented, believed the ICC was an unbiased and generally affordable arbiter of rate
disputes. With the passage of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995
(ICCTA), USDA was pleased to see that raté reasonableness, line abandonments, and rail
mergers are areas still under Federal oversight by the new Board.

However, the proposed fee increases announced by the Board for many of its services

and activities are anything but affordable. How can an increase of approximately 23,000