Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices 50421 

1A copy of the agreement with the interchange 

commitment was submitted under seal. See 49 CFR 

1150.33(h)(1). 1See 49 CFR 1250.2. 

2Available at https://prod.stb.gov/about-stb/ 

agency-materials/budget-requests/ then follow 

hyperlink ‘‘FY 2022 Budget Request Final.’’ 

3This 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. 

4See, e.g., Letter from Martin J. Oberman, 

Chairman, to Canadian Pacific (May 27, 2021), 

https://prod.stb.gov/news-communications/nondocketed-public-correspondence/ (follow hyperlink 

‘‘Chairman Oberman Rail Service Letter to CP, May 

27, 2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and ‘‘May’’). 

5See, 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’’). 

6Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘RCC Letter 

to STB regarding regulation and rail service, 

February 11, 2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and 

‘‘February.’’ 

extending from milepost CB 5.40 at 

Beesons, Ind., to milepost CB 25.30 at 

New Castle, Ind., and from milepost R 

0.09 to milepost R 1.16 at New Castle 

(the Line). 

According to the verified notice, 

NCSR and NSR have recently reached a 

lease agreement pursuant to which 

NCSR will provide common carrier rail 

service on the Line. According to NCSR, 

the agreement between NCSR and NSR 

contains an interchange commitment 

that affects the interchange point at 

Beesons.1 The verified notice states that 

NSR and Big Four Terminal Railroad, 

LLC, are the carriers that could 

physically interchange with NCSR at 

Beesons. As required under 49 CFR 

1150.33(h), NCSR provided additional 

information regarding the interchange 

commitment. 

NCSR has certified that its projected 

annual revenues will not exceed $5 

million and will not result in NCSR’s 

becoming a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier. 

Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.32(b), the 

effective date of an exemption is 30 days 

after the verified notice of exemption is 

filed, which here would be September 

22, 2021. However, concurrently with 

its verified notice, NCSR filed a petition 

to partially waive the 30-day 

effectiveness period to allow the 

exemption to become effective on 

September 13, 2021. The Board will 

address NCSR’s petition for partial 

waiver and establish the effective date 

of the exemption in a separate decision. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. A deadline for petitions 

for stay will also be established in the 

Board’s decision on the petition for 

partial waiver. 

All pleadings, referring to Docket No. 

FD 36542, should be filed with the 

Surface Transportation Board via efiling on the Board’s website. In 

addition, one copy of each pleading 

must be served on NCSR’s 

representative: Robert A. Wimbish, 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606. 

According to NCSR, this action is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under 49 CFR 

1105.6(c) and from historic preservation 

reporting requirements under 49 CFR 

1105.8(b). 

Board decisions and notices are 

available at www.stb.gov. 

Decided: September 1, 2021. 

By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Brendetta Jones, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19309 Filed 9–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

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. Socalled ‘‘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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
50422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices 

7Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘ACC Letter 

to STB Regarding Rail Service, June 8, 2021’’ under 

headings ‘‘2021’’ and ‘‘June.’’ 

8Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘Fertilizer 

Institute Letter to STB Regarding CSX Rail Service, 

June 2, 2021’’ under headings ‘‘2021’’ and ‘‘June.’’ 

9These 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). 

10Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘FRCA, 

NCTA, NITL, PRFBA Letter to STB regarding Rail 

Service Data, August 31, 2020’’ under headings 

‘‘2020’’ and ‘‘August.’’ 

11Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘AAR 

response regarding FRCA, NCTA, NITL, PRFBA 

Letter to STB, September 10, 2020’’ under headings 

‘‘2020’’ and ‘‘September.’’ 

12Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘UP 

Response Letter to FRCA regarding Rail Service 

Data, September 21, 2020’’ under headings ‘‘2020’’ 

and ‘‘September.’’ 

13Available at https://prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ‘‘FRCA, 

NCTA, NITL, PRFBA Response Letter regarding 

AAR Letter to STB, October 8, 2020’’ under 

headings ‘‘2020’’ and ‘‘October.’’ 

14For 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. 

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

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. 

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

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

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. 

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: 

• How often does the issue arise? 

• Why does the issue occur? 

Æ How does the issue affect your 

operations? How does the issue affect 

your facilities and/or production? 

Æ How does the issue affect your 

labor schedule? 

Æ What is the financial impact 

associated with this issue? 

• Has this issue changed with the 

implementation of operating changes 

generally referred to as precision 

scheduled railroading? 

• How do you typically try to address 

the issue? What is communication 

regarding this issue like between 

shippers and carriers? 

• 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: 

• What, if any, existing information 

or metrics (collected by the Board or 

maintained by carriers) facilitate an 

understanding of the issue? 

• 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). 

• How and at what level should any 

metrics be reported (individual shipper, 

local, regional, or national)? 

• Should metrics only measure 

FMLM service, or should additional 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices 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? 

• What are the specific benefits, if 

any, that would arise from the use of 

any suggested metrics? 

• 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 nonexhaustive—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: 

• What data do Class I carriers track 

that are relevant to FMLM service? 

• What aspects of these data do Class 

I carriers make available to their 

customers? 

• 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. 

• Factoring in the information that 

carriers already track, what additional 

burden would be associated with 

providing any suggested information or 

measurements? 

• If aggregated reports are suggested, 

what, if any, are the drawbacks of 

aggregation? 

• 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? 

• 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0802] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Training and 

Qualification Requirements for Check 

Airmen and Flight Instructors 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew an information 

collection. The collection involves the 

reporting requirements to ensure the 

check pilots and instructors are 

adequately trained and checked/ 

evaluated to ensure they are capable and 

competent to perform the duties and 

responsibilities required by the air 

carrier to meet the regulations. 

Experienced pilots who would 

otherwise qualify as flight instructors or 

check airmen, but who may not 

medically eligible to hold the requisite 

medical certificate are mandated to keep 

records that may be inspected by the 

FAA to certify eligibility to perform 

flight instructor or check airmen 

functions. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by November 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Please send written 

comments: 

By Electronic Docket: 

www.regulations.gov (Enter docket 

number into search field). 

By mail: Sheri A. Martin, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Safety 

Standards, AFS–200 Division, 777 S 

Aviation Blvd., Suite 150, El Segundo, 

CA 90245. 

By fax: 424–405–7218. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin M. Donohue by email at: 

kevin.donohue@faa.gov; phone: 316– 

941–1223 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The agency 

will summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0600. 

Title: Training and Qualification 

Requirements for Check Airmen and 

Flight Instructors. 

Form Numbers: There are no forms 

associated with this collection of 

information. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) parts 121.411(d), 

121.412(d), 135.337(d), and 135.338(d) 

require the collection of this data. This 

collection is necessary to insure that 

instructors and check airmen have 

completed necessary training and 

checking required to perform instructor 

and check airmen functions. 

Respondents: There are 

approximately 15,925 check airmen and 

flight instructors. 

Frequency: Information is collected 

on occasion. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 15 seconds. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66 

hours. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES