[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4564-4579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01365]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

49 CFR Parts 1011, 1104, 1115, and 1146

[Docket No. EP 762]


Revisions to Regulations for Expedited Relief for Service 
Emergencies

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) adopts a final 
rule amending its emergency service regulations.

DATES: The rule is effective February 23, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathon Binet at (202) 245-0368. If 
you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
please call (202) 245-0245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its broad statutory mandate, the 
Surface Transportation Board closely monitors the rail industry's 
service performance. See 49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145; see also 49 U.S.C. 
10101, 11323, 10907. Over the last decade, railroad service challenges 
impacting a wide range of geographic regions and commodities have 
occurred with some frequency. See, e.g., U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--
Performance Data Reporting, EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Dec. 30, 
2014); STB Letter to CSX Transp., Inc. Requesting Serv. Reporting (July 
27, 2017); Chairman Oberman Letter to Norfolk S. Regarding Serv. Issues 
(Nov. 23, 2021); \1\ Urgent Issues in Freight Rail Serv., EP 770 (STB 
served Apr. 7, 2022); Oversight Hearing Pertaining to Union Pac. R.R.'s 
Embargoes, EP 772 (STB served Nov. 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letters available at www.stb.gov (open tab ``News & 
Communications'' and select ``Non-Docketed Public Correspondence'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to service challenges in recent years, the Board has 
held a series of public hearings to permit interested persons to report 
on specific service problems, to hear from rail industry executives on 
plans to address rail service problems generally, and to explore 
additional options to improve service. At one such hearing in October 
2017, several shippers observed that the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 
part 1146, which implement 49 U.S.C. 11123 and govern expedited relief 
for service emergencies, are rarely invoked, even in times of serious 
rail service challenges. See Pub. Listening Session Regarding CSX 
Transp., Inc.'s Rail Serv. Issues, EP 742, Hr'g Tr. 89:13-22; 90:1; 
150:3-14; 196:11-22; 197:1-16; 199:1-9 (Oct. 17, 2017).
    Based on these concerns, and to better understand the reasons for 
the lack of use of the Board's directed service regulations, the Board 
announced on March 15, 2018, that Board staff would hold informal 
meetings with interested persons to discuss and gather feedback on the 
adequacy of the Board's current regulations regarding emergency service 
and service inadequacies, and whether and how the current regulations 
should be modified to offer a more meaningful path to relief. See Press 
Release, STB, Board to Hold Informal Meetings on Directed Serv. Reguls. 
Beginning in Apr. (Mar. 15, 2018), www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/archived-press-releases/.\2\ As a result, in the second 
quarter of 2018 Board staff met with representatives of a variety of 
entities representing carrier and shipper interests. A recurring 
concern expressed by shipper interests was the amount of time required 
under the existing procedures to obtain relief for service failures and 
the difficulty of satisfying certain informational burdens. Although 
carrier interests acknowledged that very few emergency service 
petitions had been filed in recent years, they nevertheless generally 
asserted that the existing procedures were sufficient, and noted that 
the Board's Rail Customer and Public Assistance program (RCPA) had been 
helpful in resolving acute service issues informally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While these meetings also included discussion of 49 CFR part 
1147 (Temporary Relief Under 49 U.S.C. 10705 and 11102 for Service 
Inadequacies), this proceeding concerns only 49 CFR part 1146 
(Expedited Relief for Service Emergencies) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
11123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By decision served April 7, 2022, the Board announced that it would 
hold a hearing on April 26 and 27, 2022, on rail service problems 
impacting the network and the recovery efforts involving several Class 
I carriers.\3\ As

[[Page 4565]]

the hearing notice explained, the Board had informally heard from a 
broad range of stakeholders about inconsistent and unreliable rail 
service throughout the network and across commodity groups. Urgent 
Issues in Freight Rail Serv., EP 770, slip op. at 2. These challenges 
included tight car supply and unfilled car orders, delays in 
transportation for carload and bulk traffic, increased origin dwell 
time for released unit trains, missed switches, and ineffective 
customer assistance. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Press Release, STB, STB Issues Hearing Notice for Urgent 
Issues in Freight Rail Serv. (Apr. 7, 2022), www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/pr-22-21/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 22, 2022, the Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
in this docket, proposing to amend its emergency service regulations. 
Revisions to Reguls. for Expedited Relief for Serv. Emergencies (NPRM), 
EP 762 (STB served Apr. 22, 2022).\4\ The Board explained in the NPRM 
that if the service issues continue, they could result in an increased 
need for emergency Board action to meet the needs of the public. NPRM, 
EP 762, slip op. at 2. Indeed, since the issuance of the NPRM, the 
Board has issued orders to address service emergencies. See, e.g., 
Foster Poultry Farms--Ex Parte Pet. for Emergency Serv. Ord., FD 36609 
(STB served June 17, 2022) (issuing, just two days after the filing of 
the petition seeking emergency service relief, an order under 49 U.S.C. 
11123 directing Union Pacific to adhere, to the greatest extent 
possible, to a schedule that Union Pacific itself put forward). In 
addition, the Board has proposed new regulations that would, if 
adopted, establish additional procedures to govern reciprocal switching 
determinations related to service inadequacy. See Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Reciprocal Switching for Inadequate Serv., EP 711 (Sub-No. 
2) (STB served Sept. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NPRM was published in the Federal Register, 87 FR 25609 
(May 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    Emergency service orders are designed to preserve rail service 
where there has been a substantial rail service issue or failure that 
requires immediate relief. Under 49 U.S.C. 11123(a), the Board may 
issue an emergency service order when it determines that there exists 
``an emergency situation of such magnitude as to have substantial 
adverse effects on shippers, or on rail service in a region of the 
United States, or that a rail carrier . . . cannot transport the 
traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the public.'' 
\5\ When the Board determines that such a situation exists, it may: 
``(1) direct the handling, routing, and movement of the traffic of a 
rail carrier and its distribution over its own or other railroad lines; 
(2) require joint or common use of railroad facilities; (3) prescribe 
temporary through routes; [and] (4) give directions for--(A) preference 
or priority in transportation; (B) embargoes; or (C) movement of 
traffic under permits;'' or, when the service failure is caused by a 
cessation of service by Amtrak, direct the continuation of operations 
and related functions. 49 U.S.C. 11123(a). The Board may act on its own 
initiative or pursuant to a petition, and emergency service may be 
ordered summarily (i.e., without regard to the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559). 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(1). Board orders under 49 
U.S.C. 11123 are subject to an initial time limit of 30 days, but they 
may be extended up to an additional 240 days if the Board finds that 
emergency conditions continue to exist. 49 U.S.C. 11123(a), (c).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the statute, an emergency situation can be created by 
``shortage of equipment, congestion of traffic, unauthorized 
cessation of operations, failure of existing commuter rail passenger 
transportation operations caused by a cessation of service by the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other failure of traffic 
movement.'' 49 U.S.C. 11123(a).
    \6\ In the case of an alternative carrier providing service over 
an incumbent carrier's lines, the carriers themselves may establish 
the terms of compensation and operations, with the Board available 
to resolve disputes, including disputes about compensation, if any 
arise. 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current regulations at 49 CFR 1146.1(a) require that a 
petitioner seeking relief show a substantial, measurable deterioration 
or other demonstrated inadequacy in rail service by the incumbent 
carrier over an identified period of time. Any petition for relief must 
demonstrate that the standard in 49 CFR 1146.1(a) is met, provide a 
summary of discussions the petitioner has had with the incumbent 
carrier regarding the service problems and the reasons why the 
incumbent is unlikely to restore adequate rail service within a 
reasonable period of time, and include a commitment from an alternative 
carrier to provide service that can be performed safely without 
degrading service to existing customers of the alternative carrier and 
without unreasonably interfering with the incumbent's overall ability 
to provide service. 49 CFR 1146.1(b). A reply to the petition must be 
filed by the incumbent carrier within five business days, and a 
rebuttal by the party requesting relief may be filed within three 
business days following submission of the reply. 49 CFR 1146.1(b)(2) 
and (3).
    In the NPRM, the Board proposed to amend part 1146 by (1) modifying 
the procedures for parties seeking a Board order directing an incumbent 
carrier to take action to remedy a service emergency, (2) indicating 
that the Board may act on its own initiative to direct emergency 
service, (3) modifying the informational requirements for parties in 
emergency service proceedings, (4) shortening the filing deadlines in 
emergency service proceedings and establishing a timeframe for Board 
decisions, and (5) establishing an accelerated process for certain 
acute service emergencies. In response to the NPRM, the Board received 
18 opening comments and five reply comments.\7\ Below, the Board 
addresses the comments submitted and discusses the clarifications and 
modifications being adopted in this final rule. The text of the final 
rule is appended to this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Opening comments were filed by the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR); the American Chemistry Council, the Corn Refiners 
Association, and The Fertilizer Institute (collectively, the 
Coalition Associations); American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 
(AFPM); Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA); the Brotherhood of 
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); CSX Transportation, Inc. 
(CSXT); Industrial Minerals Association--North America (IMA); the 
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC); the 
National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD); the National 
Mining Association (NMA); the National Grain and Feed Association 
(NGFA); Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS); Private Railcar Food 
and Beverage Association (PRFBA); the Renewable Fuels Association 
(RFA); the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD); the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA); the West Virginia Coal Association 
(WVCA); and the Western Coal Traffic League, Freight Rail Customer 
Alliance, National Coal Transportation Association, and Portland 
Cement Association (collectively, Shipper Groups).
    Reply comments were filed by AAR, the Coalition Associations, 
NGFA, the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) and the 
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), and the Shipper 
Groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Rule

    Several commenters express support for the Board's proposal.\8\ For 
example, ARA comments that the proposal would reduce barriers and 
provide more certainty for both shippers and railroads, as well as 
enable the Board to better address emergency service situations, thus 
helping to prevent localized service issues from impacting the entire 
network. (ARA Comment 1.) NACD points to the efficiencies the proposal 
would bring, (NACD Comment 2), and emphasizes that such ``[a]ccessible 
and efficient relief mechanisms are especially needed now in this 
unprecedented time of supply chain problems,'' (id. at 4). Shipper

[[Page 4566]]

Groups argue that the proposed changes would clarify substantive 
standards and improve the emergency service relief procedures, (Shipper 
Grps. Comment 1-2), as well as encourage carriers to act more 
responsibly to avoid emergency service issues in the first place, (id. 
at 8). USDA agrees that the proposal would ``improve rail service in 
times of disruption and incentivize railroads to maintain better 
service overall.'' (USDA Comment 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ (See, e.g., AFPM Comment 2; ARA Comment 1; IMA Comment 2; 
NACD Comment 2; NGFA Comment 1-2; PRFBA Comment 2; RFA Comment 2; 
Shipper Grps. Comment 1-2; SDDC Comment 1; USDA Comment 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AFPM, IMA, NACD, and PRFBA each note how infrequently the Board's 
emergency service regulations have been utilized and argue that this 
lack of use justifies review of the provisions. (AFPM Comment 6; IMA 
Comment 7; NACD Comment 2-3; PRFBA Comment 7.) According to AFPM, 
rather than pursuing emergency relief from the Board, refiners simply 
accept the temporary disruptions, often adjusting production, storage, 
or fleet size. (AFPM Comment 6-7; see also NACD Comment 2-3.) IMA 
similarly states that its member companies have not petitioned the 
Board for emergency service because the existing process requires 
information unavailable to them and does not provide a timely result. 
(IMA Comment 3.) Several commenters note that shippers choose not to 
petition the Board for emergency relief because they fear retribution 
from railroads. (AFPM Comment 6-7; PRFBA Comment 8 n.6; IMA Comment 8 
n.6.) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ AFPM requests that the Board investigate retribution by 
railroads toward shippers through rate increases, reduction in 
service days, and more. (AFPM Comment 6.) Similarly, WVCA asks the 
Board to ``convene a specific examination and proceeding regarding 
rail service and the movement of coal.'' (WVCA Comment 12.) While 
these requests are outside the scope of this proceeding, 
stakeholders may share information about these concerns through the 
Board's RCPA program or request informal meetings with the Board, as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters support the proposal but assert that the Board 
should take further action. The Coalition Associations, for example, 
express strong support for the proposal, stating that it provides 
``critical improvements that will enhance the utility of emergency 
service orders for some circumstances,'' but caution that the 
rulemaking will not solve all, or even most, service problems. 
(Coalition Ass'ns Comment 1-2; see also NMA Comment 2-3; NITL & ISRI 
Reply 1.) TTD likewise supports the proposal but also argues that the 
provisions in this rulemaking will not fully address the current rail 
service problems, which it claims stem primarily from the railroads' 
staffing, equipment, and scheduling decisions. (TTD Comment 1.) WVCA 
states it supports the NPRM and encourages the Board to continue its 
rail service oversight efforts. (WVCA Comment 2, 12.)
    AAR, CSXT, and NS each express their support of the Board's efforts 
to ensure the accessibility of service relief when necessary in times 
of emergency. (AAR Comment 1; CSXT Comment 2; NS Comment 2.) AAR 
supports ``the Board's effort to properly structure expedited relief 
where appropriate and necessary to resolve emergency situations,'' and 
proposes several modifications and additional clarifications. (AAR 
Comment 1-2.) CSXT expressly supports certain aspects of the proposed 
rule and expresses ``serious concerns'' about others. (CSXT Comment 2-
3.) NS ``supports review and appropriate updates based on sound policy 
and evidence,'' but it notes that the Board has ``existing tools at its 
disposal . . . that remain useful and effective to address service 
issues in an expedited manner,'' and it offers ``three suggestions and 
minor modifications'' to the proposed rule. (NS Comment 2.)
    Clarifying Remedial Pathways. In the NPRM, the Board proposed 
adding language to 49 CFR 1146.1(a) to clarify that it may direct an 
incumbent carrier or alternative carrier to provide service and that it 
can act on its own initiative as well as pursuant to a petition. NPRM, 
EP 762, slip op. at 5. The Board noted these changes would better align 
the Board's regulations with its statutory authority and provide 
clarity to stakeholders. Id. Several commenters express support for one 
or both of these clarifications, which merely codify the Board's 
existing statutory authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NACD, NMA, and Shipper Groups express support for both 
clarifications. (See NACD Comment 3; NMA Comment 2; Shipper Grps. 
Comment 4.) CSXT,NITL, and ISRI state that they support clarifying 
that the Board may direct an emergency service order at the 
incumbent as well as the alternative carrier, (see CSXT Comment 2; 
NITL & ISRI Reply 1), while AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA state they support 
clarifying that the Board can act on its own initiative as well as 
on petition, (see AFPM Comment 6; IMA Comment 7; PRFBA Comment 7; NS 
Comment 2 (acknowledging that the statute provides the Board 
authority to act on its own initiative)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters request additional modifications and 
clarifications to other aspects of part 1146.1(a). Specifically, the 
Coalition Associations request that the Board remove the phrase ``over 
an identified period of time,'' arguing that service emergencies can 
arise in short order and that this language suggests a shipper must 
wait for some time to pass before petitioning the Board for emergency 
service relief. (Coalition Ass'ns Comment 2.) NGFA and Shipper Groups 
ask the Board to address the Board's authority to issue emergency 
service orders on an ex parte basis. (NGFA Comment 3; Shipper Grps. 
Comment 9 (citing Hasa, Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42165 (STB served 
Aug. 21, 2019)).) According to Shipper Groups, the reply and rebuttal 
filings permitted in 49 CFR 1146.1(b) are unnecessary when a second 
carrier is not involved. (Shipper Grps. Comment 9.)
    The Board finds it unnecessary to remove the phrase ``over an 
identified period of time'' from 49 CFR 1146.1(a). This language does 
not restrict petitioners from seeking emergency service orders in 
quickly emerging situations because the section prescribes no minimum 
period that must pass prior to filing. See Expedited Relief, EP 628, 
slip op. at 8 n.14. In addition, as the Board has previously noted, the 
language of 49 CFR 1146.1(a) in its current format affords the Board 
the needed flexibility to address varying circumstances on a case-by-
case basis. See Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 8-9.
    Regarding the request from NGFA and Shipper Groups that the Board 
address its authority to issue emergency service orders on an ex parte 
basis, the Board agrees that 49 U.S.C. 11123 permits the Board to order 
emergency service without regard to Administrative Procedure Act 
requirements. See 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(1).\11\ Even though the Board is 
modifying its regulations to improve the processing time when 
emergencies occur, there may still be circumstances when the Board 
needs to act on an ex parte basis. Under the current proposal, the 
Board retains the statutory authority to order emergency service on an 
ex parte basis in appropriate circumstances and may waive its 
regulations when appropriate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Board is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act 
when it establishes the terms of compensation if the railroads do 
not agree. 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(1) and (2).
    \12\ The procedures in the proposed regulations do not address 
situations when the Board is acting on its own initiative. NS argues 
that the Board should ensure impacted rail carriers have an 
opportunity to comment--either in writing or by telephonic 
conference--before the Board orders emergency service in these 
situations. (NS Comment 4.) Absent extraordinary circumstances, the 
Board intends to afford carriers an opportunity to be heard even 
when the Board acts on its own initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR and NS ask the Board to articulate a standard for the types of 
emergency situations that would be eligible for relief under 49 CFR 
part 1146. (AAR Comment 3; NS Comment 3.) They argue that emergency 
service relief should be available only in ``real'' or ``true'' 
emergencies. (AAR Comment 2; NS Comment 2.) According to AAR,

[[Page 4567]]

without further guidance, the regulations could be used to ``secure 
leverage and immediate attention to their particular service 
complaints.'' (AAR Comment 5.) On reply, various commenters argue AAR's 
request is unnecessary and overly restrictive. (See Coalition Ass'ns 
Reply 9; NITL & ISRI Reply 3.) The Coalition Associations note that the 
existing process has been in place for ``nearly 25 years without the 
objective standards AAR deems `essential' '' and that the Board has 
denied emergency relief when a petitioner has improperly invoked 49 CFR 
1146.1. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 9.) \13\ They argue that a case-by-case 
approach is superior because the Board cannot anticipate every scenario 
that may arise. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 9-10; see also NITL & ISRI 
Reply 3; Shipper Grps. Reply 2 (``[w]hether relief is appropriate 
should be determined based on a full set of facts'').)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In support of its argument, Coalition Association cite to 
Granite State Concrete Company v. B&M Corporation, NOR 42083 (STB 
served Sept. 15, 2003) (denying an emergency service order but 
commencing a proceeding); Keokuk Junction Railway--Alternative Rail 
Service--Line of Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway, FD 34397 (STB 
served Oct. 31, 2003) (denying an emergency service order because 
alleged service inadequacy was based primarily upon rate levels); 
and Ohio Valley Railroad--Petition to Restore Switch Connection & 
Other Relief, FD 34608 (STB served Feb. 23, 2005) (denying an 
emergency service order but granting relief under 49 U.S.C. 10742).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR also asks that the Board require petitioners seeking relief 
under 49 CFR part 1146 to ``affirm that there are no alternative modes 
available or feasible.'' (AAR Comment 17.) According to AAR, the Board 
could not find there was a ``real'' emergency if the petitioner could 
shift its traffic to truck, barge, or another mode. (Id.) In response, 
the Coalition Associations note that it is unclear whether AAR is 
asking the Board to require the petitioner to include a sworn statement 
or market dominance analysis and that the latter would be impractical 
in an emergency. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 14.) The Coalition 
Associations also assert that the ``time, cost, and uncertainty of 
pursuing emergency service relief will always outweigh the additional 
cost of a non-rail transportation alternative to avoid the emergency,'' 
so AAR's inference that shippers would petition for an emergency 
service order when they have alternatives available is ``unrealistic 
and cynical.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 14; see also Shipper Grps. Reply 
8 (``[O]ne would expect that a shipper that had a viable, economic 
option to pursue would choose that option before seeking emergency 
relief.'').) Shipper Groups claim that carriers are attempting to 
increase the burden on petitioners by inserting a ``mini-market 
dominance case'' into emergency service proceedings. (Id.)
    AAR's and NS's proposal to limit the type of situations eligible 
for emergency relief under 49 CFR part 1146 is not necessary and would 
complicate the process, increase the burden on shippers, and undermine 
the flexibility provided by the current regulations.\14\ In addition, 
as various commenters have observed, the substantive standard in the 
part 1146 regulations has been in place for nearly 25 years without 
this limitation, during which time the Board has denied petitions where 
it found the situation did not constitute an emergency. See, e.g., S.F. 
Bay R.R.--Mare Island Pet. for Emergency Serv. Ord. & Pet. for 
Declaratory Ord.--Lennar Mare Island, LLC, FD 35360, slip op. at 3 (STB 
served Dec. 6, 2010) (denying an emergency service petition ``because 
the record does not show that an emergency exists''). The Board has 
previously emphasized that the emergency service procedures are ``not 
meant to redress minor service disruptions,'' Expedited Relief, EP 628, 
slip op. at 2, but rather provide temporary relief for serious ones, 
id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In contrast, the Board has proposed using objective 
standards, rather than a flexible case-by-case approach, to 
determine when a reciprocal switching arrangement should be 
prescribed, since objective standards in that context ``would create 
an incentive for rail carriers to provide adequate service in the 
first instance and because, if a rail carrier did not do so, the 
affected shippers and receivers would then have more certainty in 
their opportunities to obtain line-haul service from an alternate 
carrier.'' See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Reciprocal Switching 
for Inadequate Serv., EP 711 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 9-10 (STB 
served Sept. 7, 2023). Those proposed objective standards seek to 
``provide the certainty that is needed to protect the public 
interest, as well as the interests of rail customers, in adequate 
service on a general and sustained basis.'' Id. at 5. The Board made 
clear, however, that these standards should not be used ``for the 
prescription of emergency service under part 1146.'' Id. at 10-11. 
The Board finds that a more flexible approach is appropriate here, 
given the nature of an emergency finding, its related effects, and 
generally shorter remedy period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also declines to adopt AAR's suggestion to require 
petitioners to affirm that no alternative modes of transportation are 
feasible or available. Generally, it seems unlikely that a shipper 
would seek emergency service relief from the Board if it has easy 
access to other transportation options, as the Coalition Associations 
have observed. However, in evaluating emergency service petitions, the 
Board has considered and will continue to consider the transportation 
environment in which the emergency occurs and the impact of the 
inadequate rail service on the affected shippers. Roseburg Forest Prod. 
Co.--Alt. Rail Serv.--Cent. Or. & Pac. R.R., FD 35175, slip op. at 7-8 
(STB served Mar. 4, 2009); Pioneer Indus. Ry.--Alt. Rail Serv.--Cent. 
Ill. R.R., FD 34917, slip op. at 9-11 (STB served Jan. 12, 2007).
    NS expresses its concern that the Board might base an emergency 
service order on the railroad performance data collected under 49 CFR 
part 1250 without obtaining additional information from all parties 
involved. (NS Comment 3.) NS argues that, although railroad performance 
data might identify service trends, those trends do not necessarily 
amount to service emergencies under 49 U.S.C. 11123. (Id.) The Board 
appreciates the significance of ordering emergency service and the 
operational, safety, and financial implications it may have on 
carriers, and it anticipates getting more information beyond service 
trends in individual emergency service cases to aid the Board in 
appropriately resolving these matters. The procedures in the proposed 
regulations thus allow an opportunity for carriers to provide specific 
information to the Board about the situation at hand.
    Lastly, AAR requests the Board either ``clarify that it will not 
invoke [49 CFR] 1146.1 authority on its own motion if the issue has 
been the subject of [an] RCPA informal dispute resolution process about 
which the Board was aware,'' or add a requirement that the Board 
``certify when it invokes its [49 CFR] 1146.1 authority on its own 
motion, that none of the information leading to such invocation came 
from an RCPA informal dispute resolution process.'' (AAR Comment 15.) 
As the Board explained in the NPRM, RCPA serves as a resource for the 
Board's stakeholders, and a key part of RCPA's mission involves 
providing informal facilitation services to shippers and other parties 
without charge to resolve disputes with railroads. Requests for RCPA 
assistance, including informal facilitation services, are kept 
confidential and not shared with other STB offices. Accordingly, the 
Board does not find it necessary to add the language requested by AAR.
    Modifying Petition Requirements. Currently, under 49 CFR 
1146.1(b)(1)(iii), a petitioner must have a commitment from another 
available railroad to provide alternative service and explain how the 
alternative service would be provided safely without degrading service 
to the alternative carrier's existing customers and without 
unreasonably interfering with the incumbent's overall ability to 
provide service. As the Board discussed in the

[[Page 4568]]

NPRM, many proponents of a rule modification have expressed frustration 
with the requirement to secure an alternative carrier in advance (i.e., 
a commitment to be included in a petition) during a service emergency 
because potential alternative carriers may be reluctant to participate 
in emergency alternative service. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 5. The 
Board stated in the NPRM that requiring an advance commitment from an 
alternative carrier as a condition to filing an emergency service 
petition is an unnecessary burden on petitioners experiencing a service 
crisis that undermines the usefulness of this important statutory 
remedy. Id. at 5-6. Accordingly, the Board proposed removing that 
requirement and instead requiring petitioners to submit only a list of 
possible alternative carriers, based on the petitioner's understanding 
of other rail carriers' nearby operations. Id. at 6.
    The Board also proposed requiring the incumbent carrier and 
alternative carriers, if any, to address in the first instance whether 
the specific remedy proposed by the petitioner would be unsafe or 
infeasible, or whether it would substantially impair the replying 
carrier's ability to serve its other customers adequately or fulfill 
its common carrier obligations. Id. Regarding the requirement that 
petitions include an explanation of reasons why the incumbent carrier 
is unlikely to restore rail service, the Board proposed to clarify that 
the explanation need only take the form of a ``summary'' to the extent 
that such information is available to the petitioner. Id. The Board 
reasoned that these changes would place the informational requirements 
on the parties most likely to have the information. Id.
    According to NGFA, these changes are ``an extremely equitable and 
more efficient way to ensure the Board is presented with the evidence 
it needs to make a decision in an efficient manner.'' (NGFA Comment 4-
5.) Shipper Groups, AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA each express support for how 
these changes place the burden to provide certain relevant information 
on the entity likely to have direct knowledge of it. (AFPM Comment 8; 
IMA Comment 10; PRFBA Comment 10; Shipper Grps. Comment 5-6.) Shipper 
Groups argue that the changes would ``lead to the development of a 
better evidentiary record and more efficient and expeditious decision-
making,'' further the rail transportation policy goals of requiring 
fair and expeditious regulatory decisions when regulation is required, 
and provide for the expeditious handling and resolution of proceedings. 
(Shipper Grps. Comment 5-6 (citing 49 U.S.C. 10101(2), (15)).) AFPM, 
IMA, and PRFBA note that these changes would incentivize rail shippers 
to bring cases that may have gone unfiled in the past for lack of 
evidence not within the petitioner's control. (AFPM Comment 8; IMA 
Comment 10; PRFBA Comment 10.)
    RFA projects that the Board's proposal to eliminate the requirement 
for an advance commitment from an alternative carrier and instead 
require only a list of potential alternative carriers would ease the 
burden on petitioners, streamline the petition process, and minimize 
disruptions in important customer service dynamics with carriers. (RFA 
Comment 1.) According to NACD, NGFA, and Shipper Groups, the advance 
commitment requirement has made it excessively difficult for shippers 
seeking relief as the regulations intended. (NACD Comment 3; NGFA 
Comment 4; Shipper Grps. Reply 6; see also Shipper Grps. Comment 6.) 
According to Shipper Groups, an alternative carrier ``may be reluctant 
to commit publicly in advance to providing alternative service, 
especially if it is otherwise dependent on the incumbent carrier in 
some way, such as a short line that is beholden to the affected carrier 
for all or much of its business or otherwise subject to `paper 
barriers' established by the incumbent.'' (Shipper Grps. Reply 6.) NITL 
and ISRI contend that this change will enhance the utility of the 
emergency service remedy. (NITL & ISRI Reply 2.)
    On the other hand, AAR and CSXT oppose this change. AAR argues that 
deferring the question of whether an alternative carrier is available 
and able to provide emergency service would be impractical given the 
short time frames, ``unfairly penalize the alternative carrier by 
suddenly dragging them into an emergency proceeding as to which they 
had no prior knowledge,'' and hinder the Board's ability to ``act 
quickly and decisively, with knowledge of all relevant facts.'' (AAR 
Comment 7.) According to AAR, for the Board to be aware of factors 
affecting an alternative carrier's ability to provide service, such as 
restrictions on service in labor contracts or operational difficulties 
being experienced by the alternative carrier, the alternative carrier 
must be ``involved on the frontend.'' (Id. at 9.) AAR claims its 
concerns are exacerbated by the tight timelines proposed. (Id.)
    CSXT argues that retaining the requirement for an advance 
commitment would promote the speed and success of the emergency service 
process and would ensure that any Board action is consistent with the 
prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 11123 of any Board action that would ``cause a 
rail carrier to operate in violation of this part'' or ``impair 
substantially the ability of a rail carrier to serve its own customers 
adequately, or to fulfill its common carrier obligations.'' (CSXT 
Comment 6 (quoting 49 U.S.C. 11123(c)(2)(A)-(B)).) CSXT further argues 
that requiring petitioners to obtain advance commitment from an 
alternative carrier is not ``an obstruction'' to their ability to 
obtain relief but rather ``essential'' because it ``can only expedite 
the process by ensuring the [alternative] carrier is ready, willing, 
and able to act at the earliest possible point in the remedial 
process.'' (Id. at 7.)
    AAR and CSXT both note that the Board--when it adopted 49 CFR 
1146.1--considered and rejected the position the Board took in the 
NPRM. (AAR Comment 8 (quoting Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 
11); CSXT Comment 7.) AAR argues that nothing has changed since then 
that would make an alternative carrier's advance commitment less 
essential, (AAR Comment 8), and CSXT asserts that ``the Board must 
offer a reasoned decision supported by substantial evidence for making 
any change to [its] conclusion.'' (CSXT Comment 7-8 (citing Jicarilla 
Apache Nation v. Dep't of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 
2010)).)
    In response to these concerns, the Coalition Associations suggest 
the Board require petitioners to serve their petitions on the 
identified alternative carriers and to mandate that those carriers 
participate in the process. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 6, see also NGFA 
Comment 5-6 (suggesting the Board mandate that identified alternative 
carriers reply to a petition).) NGFA urges the Board to ``err on the 
side [of] collecting as much relevant information as possible, as 
quickly as possible, from the incumbent and an identified alternative 
carrier.'' (NGFA Comment 6.) NITL and ISRI also oppose the carriers' 
proposal to retain the advance commitment requirement, arguing that 
elimination of this requirement would increase the usefulness of the 
emergency service regulations. (NITL & ISRI Reply 3.)
    The Board does not find AAR's and CSXT's concerns persuasive and 
finds it in the public interest to eliminate the advance commitment 
requirement, as was proposed in the NPRM. Requiring shippers to obtain 
an advance commitment from an alternative carrier has unduly hindered 
the objectives of the emergency service process for the reasons stated 
in the NPRM, slip op. at

[[Page 4569]]

5-6, and by various commenters, see supra at 9-10, and removing this 
obstacle will help the process work more effectively. As the Board 
acknowledged in the NPRM, and as AAR and CSXT point out, the Board took 
a different position in the 1998 decision, stating that the absence of 
an advance commitment could create safety concerns, impair service to 
the alternative carrier's customers, or hurt the alternative carrier's 
finances. NPRM, slip op. at 5 (citing Expedited Relief for Serv. 
Inadequacies, EP 628, slip op. at 11). However, as the Board explained 
in the NPRM, feedback from rail users and the agency's own observations 
have led the Board to conclude that the disadvantages of the advance 
commitment requirement outweigh any potential advantages, and that the 
concerns expressed in the 1998 decision can be adequately addressed 
when considering individual requests. See id. Moreover, the inability 
of shippers to obtain such advance commitments from alternative 
carriers appears to have been a key driver in shippers' failure to use 
the regulatory process at all. Id. In promulgating the original 
regulations in 1998, the Board did not anticipate that the alternative 
carrier commitment requirement would lead to that result, and AAR and 
CSXT cite no precedent requiring the Board to ignore its experience 
under the regulations. With regard to the NGFA's suggestion, the Board 
will require an identified alternative carrier to reply to a petition. 
Though the Board noted in the NPRM that it could take appropriate 
action to request more information from an alternative carrier, it has 
determined that--for the Board to best meet its information needs and 
carry out its statutory obligations in a more efficient manner--the 
Board will require that an alternative carrier address whether the 
specific remedy would be unsafe or infeasible, or would substantially 
impair the carrier's ability to serve its other customers adequately or 
fulfill its common carrier obligations.
    Numerous commenters support the Board's proposal to require 
incumbent carriers to first address whether the proposed remedy would 
be unsafe or infeasible or whether it would substantially impair the 
replying carrier's ability to adequately serve its other customers or 
fulfill its common carrier obligations.\15\ AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA assert 
that such a procedural shift makes sense in proceedings where the ``use 
of the discovery process [would be] too slow to allow the Board to act 
expediently.'' (AFPM Comment 9; IMA Comment 10; PRFBA Comment 10.) NACD 
also supports this proposed change, calling it a ``common sense 
reform,'' (NACD Comment 3), and CSXT agrees that it is appropriate to 
ask the rail carrier rather than the shipper to address the safety and 
feasibility of the requested service, (CSXT Comment 3). BLET supports 
the Board's proposal to allow an alternative carrier to reply to the 
petition, arguing that its employees and members could provide valuable 
insight into how operations are happening in the field. (BLET Comment 
4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ (See, e.g., AFPM Comment 8; BLET Comment 4; IMA Comment 10; 
NACD Comment 3; PRFBA Comment 10; USDA Comment 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coalition Associations suggest the Board consider requiring 
railroads to provide certain minimum information to validate their 
claims that a remedy is unsafe or infeasible, or that it will interfere 
with their ability to serve their other customers. (Coalition Ass'ns 
Comment 7.) Similarly, Shipper Groups ask the Board to require carriers 
to make a ``specific and documented showing,'' rather than ``conclusory 
assertions,'' of substantial impairment in order to defeat a request 
for emergency service relief. (Shipper Grps. Comment 7.) According to 
Shipper Groups, carriers will seek to preserve service that is more 
profitable or that limits liquidated damages or other contractual 
exposure. (Id.) The Coalition Associations also ask the Board to 
clarify that a petition would not be defeated automatically if the 
proposed emergency service would affect another shipper. (Coalition 
Ass'ns Comment 8.)
    AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA argue the Board should shift the burden of 
proof to the railroads if a petitioner can demonstrate a prima facie 
case of ``a substantial, measurable service deterioration or other 
demonstrated inadequacy over an identified period of time by the 
incumbent carrier.'' (AFPM Comment 9; IMA Comment 10; PRFBA Comment 
10.) They further ask the Board to establish a defined standard for 
that prima facie showing of service deterioration, which could be based 
on, for example, the percentage of missed switches for first mile/last 
mile, trip plan compliance data, or plant/facility shutdown/slowdown in 
the past, present, or future. (AFPM Comment 9-10; IMA Comment 10-11; 
PRFBA Comment 11.) AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA also suggest that in cases 
where the incumbent railroad's reply fails to adequately rebut the 
petitioner's prima facie case, the Board should issue its order five 
days after the reply, effectively eliminating the rebuttal period and 
expediting the case by two days. (AFPM Comment 11; IMA Comment 13; 
PRFBA Comment 13.) AAR opposes this request, arguing that the Board's 
authority under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is ``limited to emergency situations, 
not generalized service complaints,'' and that service metrics, 
``whether based on first-mile/last-mile data or trip plan compliance, 
are ill-suited to the identification of emergencies.'' (AAR Reply 4-5.) 
AAR further argues that proponents of a Board order are required to 
make their case in support of the order, and that it would be unfair to 
further shorten a carrier's response time while also shifting the 
burden to the carrier. (Id. at 5.)
    Since emergencies can take various forms, flexibility is critical 
in determining whether a particular situation constitutes an emergency 
requiring expeditious Board action. The Board will not attempt to 
define the required minimum information appropriate for every case, nor 
will it establish a requirement for a carrier to make ``a specific and 
documented showing'' of substantial impairment in its ability to serve 
its other customers to defeat a request for an emergency service order. 
The Board seeks to gain a quick and accurate understanding of the 
circumstances underlying requests for relief so it can act to serve the 
public when necessary, not bog proceedings down with technical 
requirements that might undermine the purpose of these emergency 
proceedings. To be sure, especially given the expedited timelines, the 
Board expects that parties will support their claims with available 
evidence. The Board will not accept bald assertions regarding 
feasibility or safety as evidence of such, but circumstances will 
unfold differently from case to case, and the Board must maintain 
flexibility so it can evaluate all aspects of a case and act 
appropriately.\16\ Additionally, emergencies often arise from 
unexpected or unanticipated circumstances, and the Board must have the 
flexibility to respond to those circumstances promptly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Board is mindful that whether railroad operations are 
safe is generally within the purview of the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA). The Board's regulations accordingly require 
that petitions for emergency service relief under part 1146 be 
served on FRA. See 49 CFR 1146.1(e), 1146.2(e). Carriers should 
demonstrate that they have undertaken the requisite advance planning 
necessary to assure safe operations, including consideration of FRA 
safety regulations. See Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 13 
n.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also clarifies that petitions, regardless of whether they 
seek emergency service from incumbent carrier or an alternative, will 
not automatically be defeated simply

[[Page 4570]]

because the proposed emergency service order would affect another 
party. Rather, the concern lies with whether a proposal would 
``substantially impair'' a carrier's ability to serve its other 
customers or fulfill its common carrier obligations, which is why the 
Board is asking for replies from carriers to address this matter. 
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1146.1(a), the Board will then consider this 
information and the effects on other shippers of ordering emergency 
service as part of its analysis when determining whether emergency 
service is suitable under the circumstances and whether to order 
relief.
    In addition, the Board declines to shift the burden of proof onto 
carriers by requiring a petitioner only to make a defined prima facie 
showing of a substantial and measurable service deterioration or 
another demonstrated service inadequacy, as requested by certain 
shipper interests. As AAR notes, this would shift the burden from 
petitioners to carriers while also giving carriers less time to 
respond. While the regulations adopted here seek to remove unnecessary 
burdens on petitioners, such as obtaining the advance commitment from 
alternative carriers, petitioners must still bear the burden of 
establishing the need for such relief.
    CSXT and NS ask the Board to require petitioners seeking relief 
under 49 CFR 1146.1 to describe the efforts taken to resolve the issue 
through other means, as the Board is proposing for the new, accelerated 
process under 49 CFR 1146.2. (CSXT Comment 11; NS Comment 12.) 
According to CSXT, ``it would be appropriate to likewise encourage good 
faith efforts at informal dispute resolution prior to seeking the 
extraordinary relief of an emergency service order.'' (CSXT Comment 
11.) NS notes that the Board's reasoning for including this requirement 
in 49 CFR 1146.2, which it states appears related to the timeline of 
the accelerated process, seems to apply equally to the 49 CFR 1146.1 
process, which the Board also proposes to shorten. (NS Comment 12.)
    The Board agrees that it is appropriate to require petitioners 
seeking relief under 49 CFR 1146.1 to describe efforts taken to resolve 
issues prior to the filing of the petition. The Board prefers informal 
resolution of disputes whenever possible, and requiring petitioners to 
describe efforts taken to arrive at solutions prior to emergency 
service will encourage parties to make such efforts in good faith 
rather than seeking an order from the Board as a matter of first 
resort. Moreover, many petitions already include this information to 
some degree, given that the current regulations require petitions to 
include a ``summary of the petitioner's discussions with the incumbent 
carrier of the service problems,'' so mandating that petitioners 
describe their efforts at resolution in 49 CFR 1146.1 would not 
significantly increase their burden. Finally, requiring this 
information in 49 CFR 1146.1 petitions would better align that process 
with the 49 CFR 1146.2 process and help ensure that the Board receives 
all information necessary to understand the underlying emergency and 
overall circumstances. 49 CFR 1146.1(b)(ii) will be amended to adopt 
this requirement.
    Shipper Groups argue that a carrier should face additional 
consequences, such as penalties or damages, when it has ``deprived 
itself of the ability to meet its commitments and obligations'' due to 
underinvestment in employees and other resources, particularly when it 
cannot provide emergency service due to this underinvestment. (Shipper 
Grps. Comment 8.) According to Shipper Groups, penalties would 
incentivize carriers to act more proactively to maintain their service 
commitments and reduce the need for emergency service orders 
altogether. (Id.) NGFA agrees, adding that the Board should more 
aggressively penalize carriers that do not comply with emergency 
service orders or are unable to provide emergency service relief due to 
business or operational decisions. (NFGA Reply 3-4.) NGFA further 
contends that the Board should interpret the phrase ``each violation'' 
more broadly, for example, on a per-car basis instead of a per-train 
basis. (Id. at 4.) AAR, in contrast, maintains that a punitive approach 
is not authorized by 49 U.S.C. 11123, which contemplates alternative 
carriers compensating incumbent carriers for the use of incumbents' 
equipment and facilities. (AAR Reply 2-3 (quoting Pyco Indus., Inc.--
Alt. Rail Serv.--S. Plains Switching, Ltd. Co., FD 34889 et al, slip 
op. at 4-5 (STB served Jan. 11, 2008)).)
    The Board will not adopt these changes suggested by Shipper Groups 
and NGFA. Section 11123, from which the Board derives its emergency 
authority, contains no language or provision authorizing penalties or 
damages. Furthermore, the Board rejected similar arguments when 
adopting the existing regulations, noting that emergency service relief 
``is to be used for restorative or alleviative purposes only, and not 
as a punitive or preventive measure.'' Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip 
op. at 7.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See also Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Reciprocal 
Switching for Inadequate Serv., EP 711 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 10 
(STB served Sept. 6, 2023) (distinguishing the standard for 
obtaining a reciprocal switching order from complaint-based common 
carrier obligation cases under 49 U.S.C. 11101(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, APFM, IMA, and PRFBA want the Board to create a 
``reasonable railroad standard'' requiring ``the incumbent railroad to 
cooperate in a reasonable manner with the petitioner and the 
alternative carrier, while the [emergency service] order is in 
effect.'' (AFPM Comment 10; IMA Comment 11-12; PRFBA Comment 11-12.) 
The Board finds that implementing such a ``reasonable railroad'' 
standard is not necessary because acting reasonably, in good faith and 
in compliance with Board orders, is already required. See 49 U.S.C. 
10702. Any allegation of unreasonableness, bad faith or non-compliance 
can and will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
    Modifying the Regulatory Timeframe. In response to stakeholders' 
previously-expressed concerns about the overall length of the current 
49 CFR 1146.1 process, as well as the lack of a date certain by which a 
Board decision can be expected, the Board proposed in the NPRM to 
shorten the filing deadlines for replies and rebuttals set forth in 49 
CFR 1146.1 and to establish a target timeframe for a Board decision. 
NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 7. The Board explained that by shortening the 
timeframe and indicating when the parties can expect a decision by the 
Board, the proposed amendments would further streamline the process for 
all parties involved in an emergency service proceeding. Id.
    Many commenters support this aspect of the Board's proposal.\18\ 
AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA assert that shortening the procedural timeline 
would expedite the proceeding where time is clearly of the essence. 
(AFPM Comment 10-11; IMA Comment 13; PRFBA Comment 13.) NGFA asserts 
that a short timeline is imperative to avoid severe damage to a 
petitioner's business and customers since shippers will have exhausted 
all commercial remedies before seeking Board intervention. (NGFA 
Comment 5.) According to Shipper Groups, the Board's proposal to 
shorten the filing deadlines and establish a target timeframe for a 
Board decision is reasonable and appropriate. (Shipper Grps. Comment 
8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ (See AFPM Comment 10-11; BLET Comment 4; IMA Comment 13; 
NACD Comment 3; NGFA Comment 5; PRFBA Comment 13; RFA Comment 2; 
Shipper Grps. Comment 8; USDA Comment 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters ask the Board to shorten the 49 CFR 1146.1 
timeline further still. According to RFA, ``the modified timeline is 
too lengthy to

[[Page 4571]]

efficiently address emergencies in a timely manner.'' (RFA Comment 2.) 
RFA explains that because ethanol facilities can typically store less 
than one week's production on-site, shortening the process by a few 
days would not fully address emergency situations at these facilities. 
(Id.) ARA presents a similar argument, noting that timely delivery of 
products, such as fertilizer, is critical for agricultural retailers as 
crop production is weather-dependent and seasonal. (ARA Comment 1.) 
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ BLET asks the Board to permit extension of the deadlines if 
all parties agree, (BLET Comment 4), and AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA urge 
the Board to grant extension requests in extraordinary circumstances 
only, (AFPM Comment 11, IMA Comment 13; PRFBA Comment 13). In most 
cases, extension requests agreed upon by all parties to an emergency 
service proceeding are likely to be appropriate. However, given the 
urgent nature of the situations underlying emergency service 
proceedings, the Board will grant unilateral extension requests only 
for good cause. The Board will amend 49 CFR 1104.7 to clarify that 
requests for an extension under 49 CFR part 1146 must be filed as 
early as possible under the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR opposes shortening the timeline under 49 CFR 1146.1, arguing 
that ``[r]educing the time available for the parties to make an 
adequate record is not the solution to uncertainty over how quickly 
relief will be ordered,'' and suggests that modifying the proposed rule 
to provide firm decision deadlines may help alleviate this concern. 
(AAR Comment 13; see also CSXT Comment 12 (asking the Board to provide 
firm decision deadlines for 49 CFR 1146.1 and 1146.2).) AAR notes that 
the Board previously rejected shorter timelines and argues that the 
concerns expressed in that decision remain valid today. (AAR Comment 12 
(quoting Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 16 (``[w]e do not 
believe that a shorter time frame is feasible, given the nature of the 
relief sought, the need for an adequately developed record regarding 
the factual predicate for such action, and the ability of the parties 
to implement the proposed arrangement safely and without harm to either 
railroad or their other shippers.'').) According to AAR, shortening the 
timeline is even less feasible under the current proposal because the 
Board is also eliminating the requirement that petitioners obtain an 
advance commitment from an alternative carrier. (Id.) AAR asserts 
petitioners can consider the total timeline when deciding when to file 
a petition. (Id. at 13.) In addition, AAR urges the Board to reject the 
requests to further shorten the proposal's timelines. (AAR Reply 6.) 
AAR claims the proposal's timelines are ``already so short as to strain 
feasibility'' and asserts shippers can time the filing of their 
petitions ``to ensure relief can be provided in the correct amount of 
time.'' (Id.)
    On reply, Shipper Groups assert that AAR's proposals are 
unnecessary or at least speculative at this time, and they state that a 
firm decision deadline might prevent the Board from taking the time 
that is needed in complex situations. (Shipper Grps. Reply 7.) The 
Coalition Associations state they are amenable to forgoing the 
shortening of the timelines in 49 CFR 1146.1 since the Board has 
proposed an accelerated process in 49 CFR 1146.2. (Coalition Ass'ns 
Reply 6-7.)
    The Board is not persuaded by AAR's arguments for retaining the 
existing timeline in 49 CFR 1146.1. As explained in the NPRM, the Board 
agrees with stakeholders that have expressed concern that the process 
in 1146.1 is too lengthy in the context of a service emergency. NPRM, 
EP 762, slip op. at 7. Although the Board rejected a shorter timeframe 
in 1998, its subsequent experience with 49 CFR 1146.1 has convinced the 
Board that a shorter time frame would in fact be feasible, contrary to 
what the Board anticipated when it adopted these regulations. See 
Foster Farms--Ex Parte Pet. for Emergency Serv. Ord., FD 36609 (STB 
served June 17, 2022).
    Because the final rule includes an accelerated process for acute 
service emergencies, the Board does not find it necessary to further 
shorten the timelines in 49 CFR 1146.1 beyond the periods initially 
proposed in the NPRM. The Board will also refrain from setting a firm 
decision deadline in the regulations. The Board intends to issue 
decisions within five days of the rebuttal deadline, as proposed in the 
NPRM, but setting a firm deadline for this part of the regulations 
would serve only to complicate the decision-making process by 
constraining the Board (or requiring additional procedural decisions) 
in situations where a specific deadline might prove to be 
impracticable. The Board again emphasizes that flexibility is vital in 
conducting these proceedings.
    Establishing an Accelerated Process to Handle Acute Service 
Emergencies. In an effort to more efficiently address the most urgent 
service emergencies in a more expeditious manner, the Board proposed in 
the NPRM to establish a new, accelerated process at new 49 CFR 1146.2 
for certain acute service emergencies presenting potential imminent 
harm and threatening potentially severe adverse consequences to the 
petitioner, its customers, or the public. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 7. 
Under the new process proposed by the Board, a petitioner seeking 
accelerated relief must indicate that it is seeking such relief 
pursuant to that process, include a description of specific and 
particularized actions that can be performed by the incumbent or an 
alternative carrier and ordered by the Board,\20\ and demonstrate that 
the described emergency presents an imminent significant harm and 
threatens potentially severe adverse consequences to the petitioner, 
its customers, or the public. Id. To satisfy this standard, the Board 
proposed that the petitioner must demonstrate the alleged harm will 
occur before any relief could be ordered under 49 CFR 1146.1 and that 
any relief ordered by the Board pursuant to 49 CFR 1146.1 would be 
rendered ineffective. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 7. The Board noted that 
such severe adverse circumstances would exist when there is a clear and 
present threat to public health, safety, or food security, or a high 
probability of business closures or immediate and extended plant 
shutdowns. Id. Additionally, the Board proposed that the petition must 
include a verified description of any efforts taken to resolve the 
issue through other means, such as consultation with RCPA or direct 
discussions with the incumbent railroad. Id. at 8. The Board proposed 
to limit the length of petitions to three substantive pages (not 
including cover page, verifications, or certificate of service), noting 
that a petitioner could present further evidence in support of its 
petition during a telephonic or virtual hearing. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Because the statute limits the Board's emergency service 
authority to the actions enumerated in 49 U.S.C. 11123(a), the 
proposal limited any relief ordered pursuant to the accelerated 
process to the actions listed in the statute. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. 
at 7 n.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Board's proposal, a petition filed under the proposed 49 
CFR 1146.2 would be assigned to a designated Board Member for initial 
resolution. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 8. The Board proposed that the 
Board Member designation would rotate on a quarterly basis, and if the 
designated Board Member is unavailable, the next Board Member in the 
rotation would be assigned to evaluate the petition. Id. The designated 
Board Member would notify the parties regarding a telephonic or virtual 
hearing to be held between 24 and 48 hours after receipt of the 
petition or as soon thereafter as logistically possible. Id. Given the 
accelerated process, the Board's proposed schedule did not include a 
period for written replies--oral replies to the petition would occur 
during the hearing--however, the designated Board Member could order

[[Page 4572]]

the carriers to submit, or the carriers could voluntarily submit, an 
alternative plan to address the emergency within 24 hours of the 
hearing. Id. The Board's proposal contemplated an initial decision on 
the merits of the petition by the designated Board Member within two 
business days after completion of the hearing. Id. That initial 
decision could be appealed to the entire Board pursuant to 49 CFR 
1115.2. Id.
    The Board proposed that any relief granted under 49 CFR 1146.2 
clearly avoid any substantial impairment of the ability of a rail 
carrier to serve its own customers adequately or to fulfill its common 
carrier obligations. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. at 8-9. Given the 
accelerated nature of this process, the Board also proposed a 20-day 
limit on relief, which it stated should provide petitioners with 
sufficient time to pursue relief up to 240 days, if necessary, under 49 
CFR 1146.1. Id. at 9. Under the Board's proposal, if a petition for 
relief under 49 CFR 1146.2 is denied for failure to satisfy the 
standard for relief, the petitioner may appeal that ruling to the 
entire Board, or the petitioner may file a new petition pursuant to 49 
CFR 1146.1 regarding the same service emergency. NPRM, EP 762, slip op. 
at 8.
    According to the Coalition Associations, the creation of this new 
accelerated process is the ``single most impactful proposal'' in the 
NPRM. (Coalition Ass'ns Comment 2.) NACD also supports the creation of 
this new accelerated process, noting that emergencies require immediate 
action and accelerating the timeliness would facilitate relief in 
emergency situations. (NACD Comment 3.) SDDC states that it ``sees the 
potential for a significant improvement from adding [49 CFR] 1146.2,'' 
(SDDC Comment 1), and NITL and ISRI state that the creation of this new 
process is a critical change that will enhance the usefulness of the 
Board's emergency service regulations, (NITL & ISRI Reply 1-2). AFPM, 
IMA, NGFA, RFA, and USDA also indicated their support of the new 
proposed process at 49 CFR 1146.2. (AFPM Comment 12; IMA Comment 14; 
NGFA Comment 6; RFA Comment 2; USDA Comment 1.)
    AAR, CSXT, and NS urge the Board to discard its proposal for a new 
accelerated process. According to AAR, the new accelerated process is 
``fundamentally unfair and impracticable,'' and the ``extreme 
limitations on development of a record and meaningful opportunity to be 
heard present substantial questions of procedural fairness and due 
process.'' (AAR Comment 13.) AAR notes that neither the incumbent nor 
any alternative carrier would have the opportunity to reply in writing 
to a petition and claims ``the incumbent (and any alternative carrier) 
will have virtually no time to investigate the few facts provided'' in 
the three-page petition. (Id.) AAR doubts the timeline would allow the 
Board to ``make a responsible decision'' and asserts its concerns are 
exacerbated by the fact that petitioners would not be required to 
obtain an advance commitment from an alternative carrier. (AAR Comment 
13-14; see also CSXT Comment 10 (``The proposed acceleration to the [49 
CFR] 1146.1 process is as fast as the Board could reasonably act in a 
manner that ensures that the parties and the Board have sufficient time 
to both gather and analyze the available information to make a wise 
decision with such an extraordinary power.'') (emphasis omitted); NS 
Comment 4 (``[T]he proposed accelerated process will not allow for the 
development of a factual record upon which the Board can act.'').)
    CSXT argues it is unnecessary to create a second process when the 
Board is shortening the existing process. (CSXT Comment 9.) According 
to CSXT, because the Board's authority under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is limited 
to acute service emergencies, there is ``no authority for an even more 
extraordinary remedy for a different category of emergency--emergent is 
emergent.'' (CSXT Comment 9.) CSXT also asserts the Board has not 
explained why ``acute service emergencies'' cannot be handled under 49 
CFR 1146.1 or through the Board's injunctive authority at 49 U.S.C. 
1321(b)(4). (CSXT Comment 9.)
    NS likewise cites to the Board's injunctive authority as a reason 
for discarding the proposed new process, noting that the Board has in 
the past granted an injunction where emergency service was sought. (NS 
Comment 5 n.4 (citing Cent. Valley Ag Grinding, Inc. v. Modesto & 
Empire Traction Co., NOR 42159, slip op. at 7 (STB served June 12, 
2018).) NS further argues that the Board previously declined to shorten 
the timeline of 49 CFR 1146.1 and that there is no evidence a faster 
process is ``needed or superior to the current expedited timeline in 
[49 CFR] 1146.1.'' (NS Comment 5.) NS asserts that if the Board is 
concerned about the timeline of the 49 CFR 1146.1 process, the Board 
can eliminate the rebuttal period. (NS Comment 5 n.4.)
    On reply, the Coalition Associations urge the Board to reject the 
carriers' requests to abandon the accelerated process and suggest 
several modifications to address the concerns raised. (Coalition Ass'ns 
Reply 8.) First, the Coalition Associations suggest that rather than 
discarding the new accelerated process, the Board could discard its 
proposal to shorten the existing 49 CFR 1146.1 process. (Coalition 
Ass'ns Reply 8.) According to the Coalition Associations, the 
accelerated process would sufficiently address shippers' concerns that 
the 49 CFR 1146.1 process is ``too slow and cumbersome for the most 
time-sensitive emergencies.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 8.) The Coalition 
Associations also state they are open to limiting the relief available 
under 49 CFR 1146.2 to incumbent-based relief only. (Coalition Ass'ns 
Reply 8-9.)
    NITL and ISRI also oppose the carriers' proposal to jettison the 
accelerated process, noting that it offers one of the ``greatest 
opportunit[ies] to improve the usefulness of the [Board's 
regulations].'' (NITL & ISRI Reply 3.) Shipper Groups argue that 
``[t]here is no basis to conclude at this stage that any railroad will 
be deprived of a fair hearing without the opportunity to make a written 
presentation.'' (Shipper Grps. Reply 8.)
    The Board finds that an accelerated process is warranted to address 
acute service emergencies more efficiently. As noted in the NPRM, the 
most serious issue identified by stakeholders was the timeliness of 
regulatory action in situations involving acute service emergencies. In 
certain instances, the process in 49 CFR 1146.1 would simply take too 
long (even under the shortened 1146.1 timeline adopted in this final 
rule) for a shipper facing an acute emergency to utilize it 
effectively, even though the shipper might otherwise qualify for 
emergency service relief. The accelerated process addresses this 
timeliness issue by streamlining the petition process in certain 
emergency situations to allow the Board to act quickly while providing 
it with enough time to make a responsible decision while maintaining 
adequate due process for carriers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Board appreciates the Coalition Associations' 
suggestion that 1146.2 might make it possible to discard its 
proposal to shorten the deadlines for 1146.1, but concludes that the 
best solution is to adopt 1146.2 and to shorten the deadlines under 
1146.1. The situations that justify the use of 1146.1 are 
emergencies, even if they are not ``acute'' emergencies, so a faster 
timeline will be beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the process will be short, carriers will have a meaningful 
opportunity to reply to the petition, and the provision of an oral 
response at a hearing is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 11123, which 
intended summary procedures in these emergency

[[Page 4573]]

situations.\22\ Additionally, the regulations do not preclude the 
provision of written comments by the rail carriers; it simply does not 
provide specific extra time for them in the necessarily short schedule. 
Nor will the filing of a petition be the first opportunity for carriers 
to investigate the circumstances surrounding the particular service 
issue. Prior to filing at the Board, a petitioner would have to engage 
in the process mandated by 49 CFR 1146.2(a), which requires that 
parties seek, in good faith, to resolve any service issues through an 
informal dispute resolution process first. Finally, the accelerated 
process limits relief to no more than 20 days, and parties may petition 
the Board to reconsider its decision.\23\ The Board understands the 
gravity of issuing emergency service orders and finds that this new 
process will accommodate the procedural rights of all parties while 
affording the Board the ability to swiftly act on behalf of the public 
interest in necessary situations, as Congress intended.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As noted above, the Board's decision would not be subject 
to the APA. See 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(1).
    \23\ NS contends that the Board should not adopt a shorter 
1146.2 process because it rejected a shorter 1146.1 process when it 
adopted the rule in 1998. (NS Comment 5.) But the fact that relief 
under 1146.2 is significantly more limited than relief under 1146.1 
(a distinction that did not exist in 1998) weighs in favor of a 
shorter time frame. See Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 16. 
Also, the absence of rebuttal and reply periods in 1146.2 will 
facilitate a faster process. Moreover, as explained above in 
connection with 1146.1, the Board has reevaluated its views of the 
feasibility of faster timelines than the one established in 1998.
    \24\ NS argues that the 1146.2 process is unnecessary because 
the Board could issue preliminary injunctions instead, but the 
emergency service standard is different from the preliminary 
injunction standard, as discussed in more detail below. The fact 
that the Board has found it appropriate under certain circumstances 
to issue preliminary injunctions in lieu of emergency service orders 
does not mean that preliminary injunctions are an adequate 
substitute for 1146.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerning the standard for relief proposed by the Board, the 
Coalition Associations state that the proposal ``reasonably restricts 
this process to circumstances that threaten severe consequences to the 
shipper, its customers, or the public that cannot be avoided using the 
[49 CFR] 1146.1 procedures.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Comment 3.) However, 
several commenters ask the Board to define ``acute service emergency'' 
more clearly. AFPM, IMA, and PRFBA urge that the Board permit any plant 
shutdown to qualify for relief under this new process, arguing that any 
shutdown is acute. (AFPM Comment 12; IMA Comment 14; PRFBA Comment 14.) 
AFPM suggests removing the requirement that plant shutdowns be 
``extended,'' (AFPM Comment 12), and IMA and PRFBA suggest removing the 
requirement that plant shutdowns be ``immediate and extended,'' (IMA 
Comment 14; PRFBA Comment 14). NMA expresses concern that entities may 
interpret ``acute service emergency'' differently and notes that if 
there are multiple emergencies at the same time, the Board may need to 
weigh one emergency over the other. (NMA Comment 3.)
    AAR opposes allowing any plant slowdown or shutdown to qualify 
under 49 CFR 1146.2, arguing that not all plant slowdowns, shutdowns, 
or even closures are genuine emergencies that would qualify for 
emergency service relief.\25\ (AAR Reply 5-6.) According to AAR, 
``shutdowns and closures can often be remedied with monetary damages.'' 
(AAR Comment 6.) AAR and NS both argue the accelerated process, if 
adopted, should be more narrowly tailored, available only if the 
petitioner will experience immediate and irreparable harm, as is 
required for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. 
(AAR Comment 6; NS Comment 6-7.) NS notes emergency service orders are 
similar to preliminary injunctions in that both are extraordinary 
remedies, (NS Comment 7), and AAR argues that much like temporary 
restraining orders, petitions brought under 49 CFR 1146.2 would be 
decided pursuant to a short procedural schedule with ``minimal 
opportunity for response from the involved railroad[s],'' (AAR Comment 
6 (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Board agrees that not all ``immediate plant shutdowns'' 
are genuine emergencies that would qualify for relief under 1146.2 
and, as reflected in the language of 1146.2, that it is highly 
unlikely that a plant ``slowdown'' would ever constitute a genuine 
emergency under 1146.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shipper Groups and the Coalition Associations both take issue with 
AAR's suggestion that not all plant shutdowns meet the statutory 
requirements for an emergency under 49 U.S.C. 11123. (Shipper Grps. 
Reply 2; Coalition Ass'ns Reply 10.) According to Shipper Groups, the 
basis for relief should be decided in individual adjudications, not 
based on hypothetical facts at the rulemaking stage. (Shipper Grps. 
Reply 2.)
    Shipper Groups and the Coalition Associations also both oppose 
applying the standard for injunctions at 49 U.S.C. 1321(b)(4) to 
emergency service petitions. (Shipper Grps. Reply 4; Coalition Ass'ns 
Reply 12.) The Coalition Associations argue that the irreparable harm 
standard considers whether the petitioner could be made whole, whereas 
the Board's emergency service authority is also exercised for the 
public interest. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 12-13). According to Coalition 
Associations, ``[i]t is entirely conceivable that the petitioner could 
be made whole with monetary damages, but the broader public interest 
could not.'' (Id. at 13.) The Coalition Associations further argue that 
monetary damages are not a realistic remedy for plant shutdowns as most 
contracts and tariffs allow only for direct damages (i.e., primarily 
the additional cost of alternative transportation) but not 
consequential damages.\26\ (Id. at 10.) According to Shipper Groups, 
the fact that shippers need to seek emergency relief in the first place 
is evidence that the ``other types of proceedings'' AAR references are 
insufficient and fail to deter carriers from curtailing service. 
(Shipper Grps. Reply 2 (quoting AAR Comment 5).) According to Shipper 
Groups, the economic losses shippers face from rail service failures 
can be massive, and the carriers' proposal would ``categorically 
preclude[]'' shippers and their customers from receiving emergency 
service. (Shipper Grps. Reply 3-4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Coalition Associations further note that captive 
shippers, which they claim have the greatest need for emergency 
service, have the least ability to use alternative transportation. 
(Coalition Ass'ns Reply 10-11.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board will revise the portion of 49 CFR 1146.2(a) that states 
``immediate and extended plant shutdowns'' to simply state ``immediate 
plant shutdowns.'' Striking ``extended'' as a qualifier allows the 
Board to consider how the impact of a shutdown will vary by industry. 
In some industries, for example, imminent significant harm and severe 
adverse consequences could occur immediately upon plant shutdown. This 
change will allow the Board to better assess petitions for emergency 
relief based on the circumstances of the underlying emergency.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 49 CFR 1146.2 will also be revised to include reference to 
49 U.S.C. 11123 in a manner similar to 49 CFR 1146.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The irreparable harm standard applicable to injunctions under 
section 49 U.S.C. 1321(b)(4) will not be imported by the Board to its 
consideration of emergency petitions under 49 U.S.C. 11123. Congress 
has kept separate the emergency service and preliminary injunction 
powers of the Board. The Board sees no reason to conflate the general 
preliminary injunction standard in 49 U.S.C. 1321(b)(4) with the more 
specific emergency issues arising under 49 U.S.C. 11123, which provides 
an independent standard for when it applies, see 49 U.S.C. 11123(a).

[[Page 4574]]

    NGFA and AAR ask the Board to clarify the phrase ``food security.'' 
More specifically, NGFA asks the Board to clarify that the new 
accelerated process could be used in situations presenting a ``clear 
and present threat to the health of livestock.'' (NGFA Comment 6.) NGFA 
states that railroads' failures to deliver corn, which its members 
process into feed for livestock, can be damaging and potentially 
catastrophic to the health of livestock populations. (Id.) AAR 
questions what the phrase would include (e.g., does it cover a shortage 
of pet food, livestock feed, potato chips, or soda) and asserts it is 
not clear ``what a threat to `food security' would entail in the 
railroad context.'' (AAR Comment 7.) The Coalition Associations argue 
that ``food security'' need not be defined more clearly as it is 
``common sense'' and note that food security is ``traced back to the 
ultimate food sources, not the manufactured products in the AAR's 
hypotheticals.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 11.)
    Further clarification of ``food security'' is unnecessary at this 
time. While the Board agrees with the Coalition Associations that 
shortages of the ultimate food sources are more likely to constitute an 
emergency than shortages of manufactured products, the Board cannot 
anticipate all circumstances of potential food security-related 
emergencies. Instead, a case-by-case application that affords the Board 
flexibility in addressing situations based on the specific conditions 
of each case will best allow the Board to apply these regulations 
appropriately.
    SDDC requests the Board add ``a threat to national defense'' to the 
standard for relief under 49 CFR 1146.2. (SDDC Comment 1.) SDDC states 
that ``national defense is one very important aspect of the public 
interest, and the timely deployment of military units to a port or 
timely movement of critical defense materiel are important to that 
end.'' (Id.) AAR states it does not object to this change if the 
accelerated process is adopted. (AAR Reply 7.) The Board of course 
agrees that national defense is critical to the public interest and 
will therefore include language in 49 CFR 1146.2 to reflect that the 
accelerated process is an appropriate mechanism for addressing threats 
to national defense related to rail service.
    Regarding the proposed petition requirements under 49 CFR 1146.2, 
AAR requests that the Board require a petitioner to include in its 
petition that it has ``previously notified the incumbent railroad of 
the emergency and its intent to file.'' (AAR Comment 17.) According to 
AAR, while the proposal requires a good faith effort to resolve the 
dispute before filing, it does not require the petitioner to notify the 
incumbent carrier of the emergency. (Id.) AAR asserts that this 
modification would ensure the incumbent carrier has sufficient notice 
to prepare a response to a petition and that the Board has the most 
complete information. (Id.) Shipper Groups argue this concern is 
unfounded. (Shipper Grps. Reply 8.) Additionally, Shipper Groups 
express concern with the Board's proposal to limit petitions under 49 
CFR 1146.2 to three substantive pages. According to Shipper Groups, 
this page limit may lead to skeletal filings that could cause 
uncertainty, confusion, and longer hearings. (Shipper Grps. Comment 
10.) Shipper Groups suggest that a word count limitation would be less 
subject to manipulation. (Id.)
    The Board agrees with Shipper Groups regarding AAR's concerns here. 
It is redundant to require petitions to state that petitioners have 
notified incumbent carriers of emergencies and their intent to file for 
emergency service given that shippers are required in good faith to 
seek informal resolution of the matter before filing under 49 CFR 
1146.2 and to describe those efforts in their petitions. The Board 
expects that shippers facing such an emergency would make the impact of 
the service issue on their business clear to the railroad during 
informal discussions.
    The Board declines to adopt Shipper Groups' suggestion that it 
address concerns about the page limitation by using a word limit 
instead. It is not clear from Shipper Groups' argument why such a 
change would be meaningful, and doing so would depart from standard 
Board practice. See, e.g., 49 CFR 1115.2(d), 1115.3(d), 1115.5(c). 
Moreover, 49 CFR 1104.2 sets forth requirements such as page size, font 
size, and line spacing, which will help prevent parties from 
manipulating the limitations. The Board will, however, expand the 
petition page limit from three substantive pages to five substantive 
pages to accommodate the requirements that petitions include a 
particularized description of the commodities and volumes subject to 
the requested relief and the timing necessary for such relief, 
including why relief under 1146.1 would be ineffective; as well as a 
particularized description of how the measurable deterioration or other 
demonstrated inadequacy, absent the requested relief, presents imminent 
significant harm and threatens potentially severe consequences as 
specified in 1146.2(a).
    AAR expresses concern about the Board's proposal to rotate, on a 
quarterly basis, the Board Member assigned to evaluate petitions for 
emergency relief and issue the initial decision. AAR projects that a 
single quarter may see a large number of complaints, which could tax a 
single Board Member; AAR goes so far as to speculate that single-Member 
decision making could even lead to ``judge shopping'' by shippers. (AAR 
Comment 15-16.) AAR suggests that the Board ``shorten the rotation, not 
make it public, and allow for at least two Members'' to resolve cases 
or allow Board staff to hold a conference before making a 
recommendation to the full Board, as is done for motions to compel. 
(Id. at 16.) The Coalition Associations do not object to AAR's 
proposals intended to mitigate the burdens that could fall unduly upon 
a single Board Member; however, they object to AAR's statement that 
petitioners would ``judge shop.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 14.) 
According to the Coalition Associations, ``any circumstance in which a 
shipper can afford to wait until the following calendar quarter to have 
its petition decided by a different Board Member would not qualify for 
the [49 CFR] 1146.2 process.'' (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 14-15.) Shipper 
Groups argue that AAR's concerns may never materialize, and if they do, 
the Board can address them at that time. (Shipper Grps. Reply 7.) \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NS notes the NPRM did not propose to amend the Board 
regulations at 49 CFR 1011.4 to delegate this authority to an 
individual Board Member. (NS Comment 11 n.10.) Because the 
regulations adopted in this final rule provide for a full Board 
decision, this modification is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the concerns raised in the comments, the Board 
finds that the objectives of the new 49 CFR 1146.2 process would be 
best achieved through a full Board decision rather than through 
delegation to a single Board Member. The Board's emergency service 
powers, when exercised, undoubtedly have a significant impact on 
various parties and the interstate rail network as a whole. 
Consideration by the full Board better lends itself to the exercise of 
that power, even in the accelerated process. Moreover, consideration by 
the full Board in the first instance (rather than upon appeal of a 
single-Member decision) will allow the process to be more efficient 
while still protecting the right to appeal by petitioning the Board for 
reconsideration. Accordingly, the regulations adopted in this final 
rule provide for a full Board decision on the merits of petitions 
seeking relief under 49 CFR 1146.2. To accommodate this procedural 
change but still allow proceedings to move quickly, instead of a 
hearing before the designated single

[[Page 4575]]

Board Member as was proposed in the NPRM, Board staff will hold a 
staff-led conference with parties, as suggested by AAR.\29\ (AAR 
Comment 16.) Board Members may attend the staff-led conference.\30\ A 
transcript or recording of the staff-led conference will be made 
available to all Board Members before they make their decision and will 
be posted in the docket following any necessary redactions for 
confidentiality. In addition, given the change from a single Member to 
full Board decision, the Board will endeavor to issue a decision on the 
merits within three business days, rather than two as was proposed in 
the NPRM. This process is intended to be quick and flexible while also 
respecting the regulatory powers involved in the emergency service 
process.\31\ Moreover, including a staff-led conference might encourage 
discussion and resolution among parties to a proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Designated Board staff will not be recused from handling 
substantive elements of the case.
    \30\ The Board Members may do so ``without regard to subchapter 
II of chapter 5 of title 5.'' 49 U.S.C. 11123(b)(1).
    \31\ Shipper Groups assert that the possibility for consecutive 
appeals--first, to the entire Board, followed by a petition for 
reconsideration of the full Board decision--could dissuade 
petitioners from utilizing the accelerated process because the 49 
CFR 1146.1 process, which takes 10 business days, would appear to be 
less burdensome. (Shipper Grps. Comment 10-11.) On reply, AAR argues 
that the right to appeal is ``fundamental and already required by 
the Board's own regulations'' and that ``prohibiting appeal from the 
decision of a single Board [M]ember would be patently unfair and a 
denial of due process.'' (AAR Reply 4.) Now that the entire Board 
will decide on petitions under 49 CFR 1146.2, parties will no longer 
need to appeal these decisions to the full Board before then 
petitioning for reconsideration. However, petitions for 
reconsideration will be permitted under a shortened timeline, 
similar to the timeline provided for appeals in the NPRM, given the 
nature of proceedings under the accelerated process. The Board will 
amend 49 CFR 1115.3 accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NGFA asks the Board to require potential alternative carriers to 
address at the hearing proposed by the Board in the NPRM ``whether the 
remedy proposed by the petitioner is unsafe, infeasible, or will 
substantially impair the replying carrier's ability to serve its other 
customers adequately or fulfill its common carrier obligations,'' as 
the proposed regulations required of incumbent carriers. (NGFA Comment 
6-7.) Additionally, CSXT and NS argue that if the Board adopts the 
accelerated process, it should modify the proposed treatment of 
confidential information because closing portions of the proposed 
hearing to certain parties is unnecessary and would be unfair, 
prejudicial, and inconsistent with how the Board treats confidential 
information in other proceedings (accessible subject to a protective 
order). (CSXT Comment 13; NS Comment 11.)
    Potential alternative carriers will be required to attend the staff 
conference where that information can be discussed and will be required 
to identify, at the conference, facts showing whether the proposed 
alternative service would be infeasible, or substantially impair the 
replying carrier's service to other customers. As for CSXT's and NS's 
positions on modifying the treatment of confidential information, the 
Board finds it is best to adopt this aspect of the regulation as 
proposed in order to maintain flexibility. This flexibility is 
imperative, for example, if a case involves multiple carriers and 
requires discussion of highly confidential information. While the Board 
will leave this aspect of the proposal unchanged, the Board emphasizes 
that transparency will be pursued to the greatest extent possible.
    Regarding the proposed limitations on relief available under the 
new process, BLET argues the 20-day relief limit would provide a 
``back-stop to causing most major harms.'' (BLET Comment 4-5.) CSXT 
asks the Board to clarify in the regulations that orders under 49 CFR 
1146.2 may not be extended beyond the 20-day period and that additional 
relief would require a petition under 49 CFR 1146.1. (CSXT Comment 12.) 
AAR and NS argue that relief under the proposed new accelerated process 
should be limited to incumbent-based relief. (AAR Comment 10-11; see 
also NS Comment 5.) Both carrier interests argue it would be 
impractical for an alternative carrier to provide service for 20 days 
and that, for safety reasons, crews from the alternative carrier must 
be qualified to operate on the incumbent's tracks. (AAR Comment 10-11; 
NS Comment 5-6.) AAR adds that if an incumbent crew is available to 
train the crew of the alternative carrier, the incumbent crew could 
simply be directed to provide the service itself. (AAR Comment 10-11.) 
AAR asserts that limiting 49 CFR 1146.2 to incumbent-based relief would 
provide more time to identify an alternative carrier for continued 
relief under 49 CFR 1146.1. (AAR Comment 11.) \32\ The Coalition 
Associations state they are amenable to limiting the relief under 49 
CFR 1146.2 to ``incumbent-based relief'' only, which they understand to 
include relief that does not involve the grant of trackage rights to an 
alternative carrier but could include granting an alternative through 
route using an alternative carrier. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 7.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ AAR notes the proposed language for 49 CFR 1146.2 in the 
NPRM did not include a requirement to provide even an identification 
of an alternative carrier, although potential alternative carriers 
would be required to attend the hearing. (AAR Comment 11 n.16.) 
However, 49 CFR 1146.2(e) requires service on other parties, which, 
as discussed below, includes any proposed alternative carriers. 
Accordingly, the contact information for any potential alternative 
carriers should be provided on the certificate of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board will adopt language clarifying that relief under 49 CFR 
1146.2 may not be extended beyond the 20-day period and any additional 
relief will require a separate petition under 49 CFR 1146.1. This will 
provide a clearer pathway for any party wishing to seek additional 
emergency relief. However, the Board will not limit 49 CFR 1146.2 to 
provide for incumbent-based relief only. Section 1146.1 allows the 
Board to provide for trackage rights to an alternative carrier with the 
same safety and feasibility concerns present as those raised regarding 
49 CFR 1146.2. Additionally, while the Board expects incumbent-based 
relief to be utilized in the vast majority of instances, the Board 
finds it important to maintain flexibility in its process since, for 
example, there may be situations where arrangements between parties 
could make trackage-rights relief more feasible. Nevertheless, the 
Board emphasizes that feasibility will be considered in determining 
what relief is appropriate in a given case and that it will not order a 
remedy that it deems infeasible.
    Several commenters asked the Board to clarify the proposed service 
requirements. CSXT questions whether the Board is suggesting that all 
pleadings must be e-filed with the Board, or whether it is proposing to 
introduce electronic service of pleadings, which cannot be accomplished 
through e-filing. (CSXT Comment 12.) AAR and NS each ask the Board to 
clarify that e-filing alone is not considered sufficient service since 
e-filing on the Board's website does not effectuate service on other 
parties or the FRA. (AAR Comment 16; NS Comment 10.) NS states it 
``supports the Board adding a method of electronic service and suggests 
that the Board consider using language similar to that contained in 49 
CFR 1104.12, which governs service of documents.'' (NS Comment 11.) The 
Coalition Associations agree that the requested clarifications are 
needed. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 15.) They also ask the Board to 
consider requiring all Class I carriers to file with the Board the name 
and electronic address for service of petitions, which it states would 
ensure faster delivery to those carriers and maximize their response 
time. (Id.)
    The Board agrees that the proposed service provisions were unclear 
and will clarify them by revising the text to read

[[Page 4576]]

more like that in 49 CFR 1104.12. The Board should be served by e-
filing on the Board's website, given the short timeline of these 
proceedings. Service on other parties, including any proposed 
alternative carriers, and the FRA may be done by email, hand, or 
overnight delivery. In addition, all pleadings should also be emailed 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f3c0a1d19060c0a2a020a1d080a010c162f1c1b0d41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fba89e898d92989ebe969e899c9e959882bb888f99d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>. However, the Board will not at this time 
require the Class I carriers to file the name and electronic address 
for service of petitions. The contact information for the serving 
carrier is the type of information that should already be in the 
possession of the petitioner. Moreover, parties are required to make a 
good faith effort to resolve any service issues through an informal 
dispute resolution process, during which time they can obtain this 
information from the carrier, if needed.
    BLET expresses concern that emergency service for acute service 
emergencies might undermine collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). 
(BLET Comment 5.) The Board does not anticipate that CBAs will be an 
issue in most emergency service proceedings, but notes that any such 
issues are best resolved on a case-by-case basis in any event.
    Lastly, NMA cautions that the new process, if codified, should be 
used sparingly because, although ``it is not the intent of the [Board] 
to create a new program to regulate rail, this proposed rulemaking is a 
slippery slope that has the potential to be abused by bad actors.'' 
(NMA Comment 3; see also AAR Reply 8-9 (noting that it shares the 
concerns expressed by NMA).) While the accelerated process may impact 
informal dispute resolution between the parties, the Board finds no 
reason to assume potential abuse of the accelerated process itself. By 
its own definition, 49 CFR 1146.2 will be used only sparingly because 
it is much narrower than 49 CFR 1146.1, and the circumstances under 
which it can be used are limited. Moreover, it is in the interest of 
all parties to act in good faith, and the Board will deny petitions 
filed in bad faith or that otherwise abuse the Board's processes.
    Contract and Exempt Traffic. Various carrier interests also ask the 
Board to clarify that traffic moving pursuant to a contract is not 
eligible for relief under the Board's proposal. (AAR Comment 18-19, 
CSXT Comment 12; NS Comment 7-10.) According to NS, the plain language 
of 49 U.S.C. 10709(c)(1) makes clear that traffic moving pursuant to a 
contract is outside the Board's jurisdiction, but the Board's final 
rule adopting 49 CFR 1146.1 ``injected unnecessary ambiguity'' into the 
issue. (NS Comment 7-10 (citing Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 
10).) NS argues that even if a railroad stops service, if that service 
is governed by a contract, ``any relief . . . is wholly outside the 
Board's jurisdiction,'' and any remedies ``must be provided for in the 
contract itself (e.g., a force majeure provision) and are enforceable 
only in the courts and subject to applicable state law.'' (Id. at 9 
(citing 49 U.S.C. 10709(c)(2)).) CSXT asks that the Board require all 
petitions filed under part 1146 to include a verification that the 
transportation for which relief is sought is not governed by a 
contract. (CSXT Comment 12.) AAR also argues exempt traffic should be 
ineligible for relief under part 1146 because the expedited timelines 
would not provide sufficient time for the Board to complete the 
analysis required by statute to revoke an exemption. (AAR Comment 19.) 
AAR further argues that revocation of an exemption requires a decision 
of the full Board, not an individual Board Member as contemplated by 49 
CFR 1146.2. (AAR Comment 20.)
    The Coalition Associations disagree, arguing the Board may exercise 
its authority to order emergency service over traffic covered by a 
contract. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 3.) According to the Coalition 
Associations, Congress would not have granted the Board the broad 
emergency authority it did in 49 U.S.C. 11123 only to carve out in 49 
U.S.C. 10709 the substantial volume of traffic covered by a contract, 
nor would Congress have subordinated the public interest to a private 
contract. (Coalition Ass'ns Reply 4.) The Coalition Associations 
contend that ``[t]he transportation that occurs pursuant to an 
emergency service order is not occurring under a contract,'' but rather 
is ``alternate service pursuant to [49 U.S.C.] 11123,'' (Coalition 
Ass'ns Reply 5), and they identify a prior instance where the Board 
exercised its 49 U.S.C. 11123 authority over contract traffic, 
(Coalition Ass'ns Reply 4 (citing Joint Pet. for Serv. Ord., SO 1518 
(STB served Oct. 31, 1997), modified and extended (STB served Dec. 4, 
1997), further modified and extended (STB served Feb. 17 and 25, 1998), 
terminated with wind-down period (STB served July 31, 1998).)
    NGFA also disagrees with the proposition that contract traffic is 
not eligible for emergency service relief, pointing to the Board's 
rejection of this very argument made by AAR in the 1998 final rule in 
Docket No. EP 628, and asserting that the Board ``clearly established 
that it has jurisdiction to issue an order under [49 U.S.C.] 11123 for 
movements subject to a transportation contract if the facts and 
circumstances require it.'' (NGFA Reply 1-2 (citing Expedited Relief, 
EP 628, slip op. at 10.)) NGFA likewise urges the Board to decline NS's 
request for the Board to clarify that its emergency service authority 
does not apply to contract traffic, observing that the adoption of such 
a ``blanket, overreaching prohibition'' would be bad public policy 
because it would render the Board powerless to act when rail service 
failures significantly harm businesses and the public merely because 
the service is governed by a contract. (Id. at 3.) Rather, NGFA asks 
the Board to reaffirm its decision that 49 U.S.C. 11123 grants the 
Board authority ``to act in the public interest to avert rail service 
emergencies, regardless of whether the service the railroad has failed 
to provide is governed by a tariff or a contract, subject to the 
restrictions set forth in [Expedited Relief, EP 628].'' (NGFA Reply 3.) 
In a similar vein, NGFA disputes the claim that exempt traffic is 
ineligible for emergency service, citing Expedited Relief, EP 628, 
where the Board noted that this argument ``is clearly wrong'' because 
the Board ``retain[s] full jurisdiction to deal with exempted 
transportation, as [the Board] can revoke the exemption at any time, in 
whole or in part, under [49 U.S.C.] 10502(d).'' (NGFA Reply 2 (quoting 
Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 10).)
    NITL and ISRI similarly dispute carrier arguments that the Board 
lacks the power to exercise its emergency service authority over 
contract and exempt traffic. With respect to contract traffic, NITL and 
ISRI assert the carriers' arguments ``are factually and legally 
incorrect and contrary to the intent of Congress.'' (NITL & ISRI Reply 
3.) As for exempt traffic, NITL and ISRI request that the Board 
partially revoke existing class exemptions so they will not apply to 
requests for emergency service. (Id. at 8.) NITL and ISRI argue there 
are ``substantial similarities'' between the Board's ``partial 
revocation of the exemption for agricultural commodities and the 
circumstances involving exempt traffic and emergency service orders,'' 
which would justify the Board partially revoking existing exemptions to 
permit shippers of exempt commodities to access the Board's emergency 
service regulations. (Id. at 3-8.)
    Shipper Groups contend that the carriers have not presented any 
basis for the Board to depart from its decision in Expedited Relief, EP 
628, (Shipper Grps. Reply 4), and argue that this issue is outside the 
scope of the proceeding

[[Page 4577]]

because it was not included in the NPRM, (id. at 5).
    The NPRM did not make any new proposal regarding the application of 
section 11123 to contract traffic. In Expedited Relief, EP 628, the 
Board concluded that any advance rejection of all authority to address 
situations where a contract exists in an emergency would be 
inappropriate and declined to include any bright-line prohibition. 
Expedited Relief, EP 628, slip op. at 10. In the NPRM, the Board made 
no proposals changing the status of existing law on this issue and sees 
no reason to revisit that position here.
    As for exempt traffic, the Board reiterates that it has the 
authority to revoke exemptions when appropriate. Petitioners may 
request partial revocations in their filings at 49 CFR 1146.1 or the 
new accelerated process at 49 CFR 1146.2 (which will not be decided by 
a single Member, as the NPRM originally proposed, but by the full 
Board). See supra at 23-24.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Regulatory Flexibility 
Act), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis 
of new rules that would have a significant economic impact of 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. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. In its final rule, the agency must either 
include a final regulatory flexibility analysis, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), or 
certify that the proposed rule would not have a ``significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    Because the goal of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to reduce the 
cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to perform a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly 
regulates those entities. In other words, 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 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.\33\ The Board explained that the proposed 
changes were intended to improve the Board's directed service 
procedures and would not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small 
entities. Rather, the Board said, the changes would be largely 
procedural and would not have a significant economic impact on the 
Class III rail carriers to which the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
applies. Because affected shippers or railroads could seek the relief 
under 49 CFR part 1146 to obtain temporary relief from serious, 
localized service problems more quickly and effectively, the Board 
certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rules, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For the purpose of Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis for 
rail carriers subject to Board jurisdiction, the Board defines a 
``small business'' as only including those rail carriers classified 
as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR part 1201, General 
Instructions 1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regul. 
Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016). Class III 
carriers have annual operating revenues of $40.4 million or less in 
2019 dollars. Class II rail carriers have annual operating revenues 
of less than $900 million but more than $40.4 million in 2019 
dollars. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually 
and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds in decisions and on 
its website. 49 CFR 1201.1-1; Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues 
of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 29, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Thus, the Board again certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 the NPRM, the Board sought comments pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), and Appendix B, about 
the impact of the collection for the Directed Service Regulations (OMB 
Control No. 2140-XXXX), concerning: (1) whether the collections of 
information, as added in the proposed rule, and further described in 
Appendix A, are necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Board, including whether the collections have 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.
    The Board estimated in the NPRM that the proposed requirements will 
have a total hourly burden of 2,710 hours. There were no proposed non-
hourly burdens associated with these collections. No comments were 
received pertaining to the collections of this information under the 
PRA. The new collections will be submitted to OMB for review as 
required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
    Congressional Review Act. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 
5 U.S.C. 801-808, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
designated this rule as a non-major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 1011

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government 
agencies).

49 CFR Part 1104

    Administrative practice and procedure.

49 CFR Part 1115

    Administrative practice and procedure.

49 CFR Part 1146

    Railroads.

    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 February 23, 2024.
    3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.

    Decided: January 18, 2024.

    By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and 
Schultz.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface 
Transportation Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X, parts 1011, 
1104, 1115, and 1146 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

[[Page 4578]]

PART 1011--BOARD ORGANIZATION; DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY

0
1. The authority citation for part 1011 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321, 
11123, 11124, 11144, 14122, and 15722.


0
2. Add Sec.  1011.7(a)(2)(xx) to read as follows:


Sec.  1011.7  Delegations of authority by the Board to specific offices 
of the Board.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xx) To delegate to Board staff any necessary parties for purposes 
of accelerated emergency service proceedings at Sec.  1146.2 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 1104 continues 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. Revise Sec.  1104.7(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1104.7  Computation and extension of time.

* * * * *
    (b) Extensions. Any time period, except those provided by law or 
specified in these rules respecting informal complaints seeking damage, 
may be extended by the Board in its discretion, upon request and for 
good cause. Requests for extensions must be served on all parties of 
record at the same time and by the same means as service is made on the 
Board. However, if service is made on the Board in person and personal 
service on other parties is not feasible, service on other parties 
should be made by first class or express mail. A request for an 
extension must be filed not less than 10 days before the due date, 
except that in cases seeking expedited relief for service emergencies 
under part 1146 of this chapter, a request for an extension must be 
made within 24 hours of service of the petition, reply, or other filing 
or procedural order of the Board as applicable. Only the original of 
the request and certificate of service need be filed with the Board. If 
granted, the party making the request should promptly notify all 
parties to the proceeding of the extension and so certify to the Board, 
except that this notification is not required in rulemaking 
proceedings.
* * * * *

PART 1115--APPELLATE PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1115 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 11708.


0
2. Revise Sec.  1115.3(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1115.3  Board actions other than initial decisions.

* * * * *
    (e) Petitions must be filed within 20 days after the service of the 
action or within any further period (not to exceed 20 days) as the 
Board may authorize. However, in cases under Final Offer Rate Review 
and in cases seeking expedited relief for service emergencies under the 
accelerated process at 49 CFR 1146.2, petitions must be filed within 5 
days after the service of the action, and replies to petitions must be 
filed within 10 days after the service of the action.
* * * * *

PART 1146--EXPEDITED RELIEF FOR SERVICE EMERGENCIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1146 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 1321, 11101, and 11123.


0
2. Revise Sec.  1146.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  1146.1  Prescription of alternative rail service or directed 
action by an incumbent carrier.

    (a) General. Alternative rail service, or directed action by an 
incumbent carrier, will be prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 11123(a) if the 
Board determines that, over an identified period of time, there has 
been a substantial, measurable deterioration or other demonstrated 
inadequacy in rail service provided by the incumbent carrier. In 
prescribing the relief described herein, the Board may act on its own 
initiative or pursuant to a petition.
    (b) Procedure for petition for relief--(1) Petition for relief. 
Affected shippers or railroads may seek the relief described in 
paragraph (a) of this section by filing an appropriate petition 
containing:
    (i) A full explanation, together with all supporting evidence, to 
demonstrate that the standard for relief contained in paragraph (a) of 
this section is met;
    (ii) A summary of both the petitioner's discussions with the 
incumbent carrier of the service problems (including a description of 
the efforts taken to resolve the matter prior to filing of the 
petition, verified by a person or persons with knowledge of the efforts 
taken to resolve the matter), and the reasons why the incumbent carrier 
is unlikely to restore adequate rail service consistent with the 
petitioner's current transportation needs within a reasonable period of 
time;
    (iii) In a petition that seeks alternative rail service, 
identification of at least one possible rail carrier to provide 
alternative service, based on the petitioner's understanding of other 
rail carriers' nearby operations, that would meet the current 
transportation needs of the petitioner; and
    (iv) A detailed explanation of the specific remedy that is being 
sought.
    (2) Reply. The incumbent carrier and any proposed alternative 
carriers must file a reply to a petition under this paragraph within 
three (3) business days of service of the petition. If applicable, any 
reply must address whether the specific remedy proposed by the 
petitioner would be unsafe or infeasible, or would substantially impair 
the carrier's ability to serve its other customers adequately or 
fulfill its common carrier obligations.
    (3) Rebuttal. The party requesting relief may file rebuttal no more 
than two (2) business days after the reply is filed.
    (4) Board Decision. The Board will endeavor to issue a decision 
five (5) business days after receiving the rebuttal or time has expired 
for the party requesting relief to file a rebuttal, whichever is 
earlier.
    (c) Presumption of continuing need. Unless otherwise indicated in 
the Board's order, a Board order issued under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall establish a rebuttable presumption that the 
transportation emergency will continue for more than 30 days from the 
date of that order.
    (d) Procedure for petition to terminate relief--(1) Petition to 
terminate relief. Should the Board prescribe alternative rail service 
under paragraph (a) of this section the incumbent carrier may 
subsequently file a petition to terminate that relief. Such a petition 
shall contain a full explanation, together with all supporting 
evidence, to demonstrate that the carrier is providing, or is prepared 
to provide, adequate service. Carriers are admonished not to file such 
a petition prematurely.
    (2) Reply. Parties must file replies to petitions to terminate 
filed under this paragraph (d) within five (5) business days.
    (3) Rebuttal. The incumbent carrier may file any rebuttal no more 
than three (3) business days later.
    (e) Service. Every document filed with the Board under this section 
must include a certificate showing simultaneous service upon all 
parties to

[[Page 4579]]

the proceeding, including any proposed alternative carriers and the 
Federal Railroad Administration. Service on the parties must be by the 
same method and class of service used in serving the Board, with 
charges, if any, prepaid. One copy must be served on each party. If 
service is made on the Board in person, and personal service on other 
parties is not feasible, service must be made by overnight delivery. If 
a document is filed with the Board through the e-filing process, a copy 
of the e-filed document must be emailed to other parties if that means 
of service is acceptable to those other parties. If email is not 
acceptable to the receiving party, a paper copy of the document must be 
personally served on the other parties. If neither email nor personal 
service is feasible, service of a paper copy must be by overnight 
delivery. When a party is represented by a practitioner or attorney, 
service upon the practitioner is deemed to be service upon the party. 
All pleadings under this section must also be emailed to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4a79186829d9791b199918693919a978db4878096da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="07546275716e6462426a6275606269647e4774736529606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

0
3. Add Sec.  1146.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  1146.2  Accelerated process.

    (a) Request for accelerated process. After making a good faith 
effort to resolve its service issue through an informal dispute 
resolution process or service of the Board, affected shippers or 
railroads may seek accelerated temporary interim relief under 49 U.S.C. 
11123(a) for substantial, measurable deterioration or other 
demonstrated inadequacy in rail service provided by the incumbent 
carrier that presents potential imminent significant harm and threatens 
potentially severe adverse consequences to the petitioner, its 
customers, or the public. Such emergencies exist when there is a clear 
and present threat to public health, safety, national defense, or food 
security, or a high probability of business closures or immediate plant 
shutdowns. The timing of potential harm and consequences must render 
potential relief under Sec.  1146.1 ineffective. The relief requested 
must be feasible and clearly avoid any substantial impairment of the 
ability of a rail carrier to serve its own customers adequately, or to 
fulfill its common carrier obligations.
    (b) Procedure for accelerated process--(1) Petition for relief. A 
petitioner seeking accelerated relief must indicate in its petition 
that it is seeking such relief pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section and must demonstrate circumstances that meet the standard set 
forth in that paragraph. The petition must include:
    (i) A particularized description of the commodities and volumes 
which would be subject to the requested relief and the timing necessary 
for such relief, including why potential relief under Sec.  1146.1 
would be ineffective;
    (ii) A particularized explanation of how the measurable 
deterioration or other demonstrated inadequacy, absent the requested 
relief, presents imminent significant harm and threatens potentially 
severe adverse consequences as specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section;
    (iii) A description of specific and particularized action that 
could be performed by the incumbent carrier or an alternative carrier 
and ordered by the Board to relieve the potential harm and adverse 
consequences;
    (iv) A summary description of the efforts taken to resolve the 
matter prior to filing the petition, which must be verified by a person 
or persons with knowledge of the efforts taken to resolve the matter; 
and
    (v) Contact information for the incumbent carrier.
    (vi) The petition will be limited to five (5) substantive pages, 
not including the cover page, verifications, or certificate of service.
    (2) Staff conference. When the Board receives a petition seeking 
accelerated relief under paragraph (a) of this section, the petition 
will be evaluated on its merits by the Board.
    (i) After the Board receives the petition for accelerated relief, a 
telephonic or virtual conference, led by designated Board staff, will 
be held no sooner than 24 hours after receipt of the filing, but no 
later than 48 hours after receipt of the filing, if practicable. 
Designated Board staff may continue to work on the case after the 
conference.
    (ii) Required parties for the conference include the petitioner(s), 
the incumbent carrier, and any proposed potential alternative carriers 
and other parties deemed necessary by the Board. Portions of the 
conference may be closed to certain parties if confidential business 
information needs to be discussed. The conference will be recorded and 
later transcribed (with redactions, if necessary), and placed in the 
public docket of the proceeding.
    (iii) If applicable, the incumbent carrier or any alternative 
carrier shall address at the conference whether the remedy proposed by 
the petitioner is unsafe, infeasible, or will unreasonably impair the 
carrier's ability to serve other customers. The Board may order the 
incumbent carrier to submit, or if no such order is issued, the 
incumbent carrier may choose to submit, within 24 hours of the 
completion of the conference, an alternative service plan for the Board 
to consider. Any alternative carrier may also submit, within 24 hours 
of the completion of the conference, an alternative service plan for 
the Board to consider. The Board may choose to receive such information 
either via written submission or a second virtual or telephonic 
conference, if practicable.
    (3) Board decision. The Board will endeavor to issue an initial 
decision on the merits of the petition requesting accelerated relief 
within three (3) business days of the completion of the conference. The 
Board shall not award relief under this section for more than 20 days, 
and any relief ordered under this section shall not be extended beyond 
the 20-day period. A party may petition the Board for subsequent relief 
under Sec.  1146.1.
    (c) Petition for reconsideration. After the Board issues an initial 
decision on the merits of the petition requesting accelerated relief, 
parties may petition the Board for reconsideration. The petition for 
reconsideration will be subject to Sec.  1115.3 of this chapter. The 
record is to include any filings by the parties in the proceeding and 
the unredacted recording of the conference.
    (d) Stay of relief. Notwithstanding Sec.  1115.3 of this chapter, 
parties seeking a stay of the relief issued by the Board must 
concurrently file a petition for reconsideration of the decision and a 
petition to stay.
    (e) Service. Every document filed with the Board under this section 
must include a certificate showing simultaneous service upon all 
parties to the proceeding, including any proposed alternative carriers 
and the Federal Railroad Administration. One copy must be served on 
each party. Service on the Board must be made through the e-filing 
process, and a copy of the e-filed document must be emailed to other 
parties if that means of service is acceptable to those other parties. 
If email is not acceptable to the receiving party, a paper copy of the 
document must be personally served on the other parties. If neither 
email nor personal service is feasible, service of a paper copy must be 
by overnight delivery. When a party is represented by a practitioner or 
attorney, service upon the practitioner is deemed to be service upon 
the party. All pleadings under this section must also be emailed to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bae9dfc8ccd3d9dfffd7dfc8dddfd4d9c3fac9ced894ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bae9dfc8ccd3d9dfffd7dfc8dddfd4d9c3fac9ced894ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

[FR Doc. 2024-01365 Filed 1-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>