[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50421-50423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19362]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 767]


First-Mile/Last-Mile Service

    The Board seeks comments on issues regarding first-mile/last-mile 
(FMLM) service, particularly on whether additional metrics to measure 
such service might have utility that exceeds any associated burden. 
FMLM service refers to the movement of railcars between a local 
railroad serving yard and a shipper or receiver facility. So-called 
``local trains'' serve customers in the vicinity of the local yard, 
spotting (i.e., placing for loading or unloading) inbound cars and 
pulling (i.e., picking up) outbound cars from each customer facility. A 
larger local yard may run numerous local trains serving many customers 
dispersed along separate branches; a smaller yard may run only a 
handful of local trains. Yard crews build outbound local trains by 
assembling blocks (groups of cars) for each customer on the route. 
Inbound local trains return to the yard with cars released from shipper 
facilities and, in turn, are sorted into outbound blocks for line-haul 
movements. After hearing concerns raised by shippers across numerous 
industries and requests for transparency of FMLM data, the Board seeks 
information on possible FMLM service issues, the design of potential 
metrics to measure such service, and the associated burdens or trade-
offs with any suggestions raised by commenters.

Background

    In addition to weekly and monthly collection of certain railroad 
performance data metrics from Class I railroads,\1\ the Board actively 
monitors, on an informal basis, the national rail network, including 
network fluidity and service issues, through, for example, the 
Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (RSTAC), the Rail 
Customer and Public Assistance Program, and information requests to 
Class I railroads. See, e.g., Surface Transportation Board, Budget 
Request Fiscal Year 2022, 14-15.\2\ Since Spring 2020, the Board has 
focused its informal monitoring on the effects of and response to the 
pandemic, engaging in frequent communication \3\ with carriers, 
shippers, and other stakeholders. See id. Recently, the Board's 
Chairman inquired to each Class I carrier about rail service issues \4\ 
and supply chain issues \5\ (including local service issues). The Board 
appreciates the carriers' responses to its informal requests and now 
seeks more formal input from shippers, carriers, and the public focused 
specifically on FMLM service. As the Board has heard from various 
stakeholders, in recent months, crew shortages and other issues 
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and worldwide supply chain 
complications have heightened and added to the importance of the Board 
exploring FMLM service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 1250.2.
    \2\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/about-stb/agency-materials/budget-requests/ then follow hyperlink ``FY 2022 Budget 
Request Final.''
    \3\ This communication during the initial phase of the pandemic 
included ``daily and weekly communications with key railroad and 
shipper stakeholders to actively monitor the reliability of the 
freight rail network with a special focus on critical supply 
chains.'' Surface Transportation Board, Budget Request Fiscal Year 
2022, 14. For example, the Board and RSTAC convened weekly (and 
later biweekly) conference calls. Id. The Board also participated in 
calls hosted by the Federal Railroad Administration, held with 
representatives from each Class I railroad, the short line and 
regional railroads, and the National Passenger Railroad Corporation 
(Amtrak). Id.
    \4\ See, e.g., Letter from Martin J. Oberman, Chairman, to 
Canadian Pacific (May 27, 2021), https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ (follow hyperlink 
``Chairman Oberman Rail Service Letter to CP, May 27, 2021'' under 
headings ``2021'' and ``May'').
    \5\ See, e.g., Letter from Martin J. Oberman, Chairman, to BNSF 
Railway Company (July 22, 2021), https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ (follow hyperlink 
``Chairman Oberman Letter to BNSF Regarding Intermodal Supply Chain 
Issues, July 22, 2021'' under headings ``2021'' and ``July'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board has received a number of letters about FMLM service 
issues. For example, the Rail Customer Coalition (RCC) wrote to the 
Board this year to request, among other things, that the Board ``adopt 
new reporting metrics to provide a more complete and useful picture of 
rail service, including [FMLM] performance.'' RCC Letter 2.\6\ 
Following the Chairman's May 27, 2021 letters regarding rail service to 
the Class I carriers, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) wrote to the 
Board regarding general service concerns, briefly noting local service 
failures, see

[[Page 50422]]

ACC Letter 2,\7\ and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) wrote to express 
general service concerns, which encompass issues such as reductions in 
days of service to customers, increased dwell times, and car order 
errors, see TFI Letter 2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``RCC Letter 
to STB regarding regulation and rail service, February 11, 2021'' 
under headings ``2021'' and ``February.''
    \7\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``ACC Letter 
to STB Regarding Rail Service, June 8, 2021'' under headings 
``2021'' and ``June.''
    \8\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``Fertilizer 
Institute Letter to STB Regarding CSX Rail Service, June 2, 2021'' 
under headings ``2021'' and ``June.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board has received additional correspondence relating to FMLM 
service over the last year.\9\ On August 31, 2020, the Freight Rail 
Customer Alliance (FRCA), the National Coal Transportation Association 
(NCTA), the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), and the 
Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association, Inc. (PRFBA), 
(collectively, the Shipper Group) stated that their members have become 
increasingly aware of and concerned by what they describe as the gap 
between the service data that the railroads report to the Board and the 
level of service that shippers receive in the real world. the Shipper 
Group Letter 2.\10\ The Shipper Group noted that the service metrics 
collected pursuant to rules adopted in United States Rail Service 
Issues--Performance Data Reporting, Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4), do 
not focus on FMLM service for traffic that does not move in unit 
trains. Id. Therefore, they seek ``improved transparency regarding 
[FMLM service issues]'' and suggest that such ``transparency could be 
achieved by having the rail carriers report appropriate data.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These letters follow comments in Oversight Hearing on 
Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, Docket No. EP 754, regarding a 
variety of local service issues that may relate to FMLM service. 
See, e.g., International Paper Statement 2, May 7, 2019, Oversight 
Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754 (``Reduced 
switch frequency has led to last mile service issues. . . . Changes 
to local service yards have also heightened risks for service 
failure.''); Packaging Corporation of America Statement 3-5, May 8, 
2019, Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754 
(describing local service issues such as switching issues); Ag 
Processing Inc Statement 4, June 5, 2019, Oversight Hearing on 
Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754 (referring to increased 
dwell times due to reductions in local service).
    \10\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``FRCA, NCTA, 
NITL, PRFBA Letter to STB regarding Rail Service Data, August 31, 
2020'' under headings ``2020'' and ``August.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Association of American Railroads (AAR) responded to the letter 
on September 10, 2020, stating that the request is unnecessary and 
undefined, that data collection would not be practicable or meaningful, 
and that shippers have remedies for service concerns. AAR Letter 1-
3.\11\ AAR notes that railroads provide such information directly to 
their customers, id. at 1, and that the Shipper Group's suggestion 
would require that the Board ``collect, process, and protect enormous 
amounts of commercially sensitive data and information,'' id. at 3. On 
September 21, 2020, UP responded to the Shipper Group, stating that it 
already provides local service metrics at the customer level and that 
aggregated metrics would not provide customers with meaningful 
representation of their local service levels. UP Letter 1.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``AAR response 
regarding FRCA, NCTA, NITL, PRFBA Letter to STB, September 10, 
2020'' under headings ``2020'' and ``September.''
    \12\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``UP Response 
Letter to FRCA regarding Rail Service Data, September 21, 2020'' 
under headings ``2020'' and ``September.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 8, 2020, the Shipper Group replied that data reporting 
on FMLM issues would not be unduly burdensome, that it would be useful 
regardless of some inconsistencies between carriers, and that it is 
needed because it would help the Board better monitor carriers' service 
and the data available to individual shippers does not allow the Board 
to ``ascertain whether carriers are meeting their common carrier 
obligations in the aggregate.'' the Shipper Group Response Letter 2-
3.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Available at https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/non-docketed-public-correspondence/ then follow hyperlink ``FRCA, NCTA, 
NITL, PRFBA Response Letter regarding AAR Letter to STB, October 8, 
2020'' under headings ``2020'' and ``October.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comments

    The Board seeks comment from the shipping community, carriers, and 
the public concerning what, if any, FMLM issues they consider relevant. 
The Board also seeks comment on whether further examination of FMLM 
issues is warranted, and what, if any, actions may help address such 
issues, taking into account the information shippers already receive 
from carriers. Of particular importance, and as set forth in the 
questions raised below, the Board seeks recommendations as to specific 
additional data commenters view as important to identify FMLM service 
concerns that is not now being reported to the Board.\14\ The Board 
would find such data recommendations helpful with respect to the issues 
commenters may find relevant to FMLM service. The Board also seeks 
information about potential burdens of any suggested data collection 
and reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the Board is interested in the insights it may 
be able to draw from event data such as the TeleRail Automated 
Information Network (TRAIN II) information exchange protocol or 
similar datasets available to the railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shipper commenters may wish to provide context for their comments 
by including information about the quantity or volume of traffic they 
ship, their storage capacity, seasonality of their shipments (if any), 
work windows, and other factors that make their facilities or 
operations unique. If requested, a protective order may be issued that 
would allow sensitive information to be filed under seal.
    In identifying FMLM issues, commenters should provide concrete 
examples, if possible. Further, although there is no set format for 
comments, answers to the following questions would be helpful when 
identifying issues:
    <bullet> How often does the issue arise?
    <bullet> Why does the issue occur?
    [cir] How does the issue affect your operations? How does the issue 
affect your facilities and/or production?
    [cir] How does the issue affect your labor schedule?
    [cir] What is the financial impact associated with this issue?
    <bullet> Has this issue changed with the implementation of 
operating changes generally referred to as precision scheduled 
railroading?
    <bullet> How do you typically try to address the issue? What is 
communication regarding this issue like between shippers and carriers?
    <bullet> What remedies are available to you?
    Design of metrics. As noted, some shippers have suggested that the 
Board collect additional service metrics to measure FMLM service, and 
commenters may wish to further address:
    <bullet> What, if any, existing information or metrics (collected 
by the Board or maintained by carriers) facilitate an understanding of 
the issue?
    <bullet> What new information or metrics would illuminate the 
issue? The Board asks for specificity in any suggestions, including 
specific definitions for different types of services (e.g., 
transportation involving one carrier vs. multiple carriers) and 
facilities (e.g., open- vs. closed-gate).
    <bullet> How and at what level should any metrics be reported 
(individual shipper, local, regional, or national)?
    <bullet> Should metrics only measure FMLM service, or should 
additional

[[Page 50423]]

metrics more broadly measure service that may relate to or involve FMLM 
service, such as metrics on car trip plan compliance? Who would use any 
such information or measurements, and how?
    <bullet> What are the specific benefits, if any, that would arise 
from the use of any suggested metrics?
    <bullet> Would reports to the Board, shipper surveys, reports 
directly to individual shippers, or some other type of information be 
helpful to clarify the issue?
    The above list of questions is non-exhaustive--commenters should 
feel free to provide any information they believe will be helpful to 
the Board as it considers issues related to FMLM service.
    Some of the issues that have been raised with the Board by 
stakeholders and that commenters may wish to comment on, if pertinent 
to them, include (a) switching, including missed switches and/or 
inconsistent switches; (b) modified service plans at local yards (such 
modified plans may reduce the number of service days per week, increase 
the number of service days per week, or change the timing of service 
(morning versus night)); (c) car delivery, such as the delivery of cars 
carrying a different commodity, delivery of a different type of car 
than the cars ordered, or delivery of fewer or more cars than were 
ordered; (d) extended dwell times at railroad facilities local to 
shipper/receiver locations; and (e) discrepancies in information 
between the railroad and the rail customer as to the location of cars 
between the local yard and the shipper's facility.
    Carrier data tracking. As indicated by AAR's letter, carriers track 
some information related to FMLM service, and the Board could consider 
extant data in evaluating comments on the design of metrics. The Board 
seeks comment regarding the following questions:
    <bullet> What data do Class I carriers track that are relevant to 
FMLM service?
    <bullet> What aspects of these data do Class I carriers make 
available to their customers?
    <bullet> To the extent that Class I carriers collect certain 
information, what uniformity issues may exist related to that data that 
may affect reporting to the Board?
    Trade-offs. Finally, the Board seeks comment on the trade-offs of 
any suggestions.
    <bullet> Factoring in the information that carriers already track, 
what additional burden would be associated with providing any suggested 
information or measurements?
    <bullet> If aggregated reports are suggested, what, if any, are the 
drawbacks of aggregation?
    <bullet> If individual reports directly to shippers are suggested, 
what, if any, are the drawbacks of such approach, particularly in 
comparison to reporting directly to the Board, as was required in 
United States Rail Service Issues--Performance Data Reporting, Docket 
No. EP 724?
    <bullet> How should the Board consider relative burden based on the 
type of carrier involved in the transportation (e.g., Class II or III 
railroad)?
    Interested persons may file comments by October 18, 2021. If any 
comments are filed, replies will be due by November 16, 2021.
    It is ordered:
    1. Comments are due October 18, 2021. Replies are due November 16, 
2021.
    2. This decision is effective on its service date.

    Decided: August 31, 2021.

    By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and 
Schultz.
Regena Smith-Bernard,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2021-19362 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P