Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 473 

incumbent LEC, no later than the 

twenty-ninth day following the release 

of the Commission’s public notice. All 

objections filed under this section must: 

(1) State specific reasons why the 

objector cannot accommodate the 

incumbent LEC’s changes by the date 

stated in the incumbent LEC’s public 

notice and must indicate any specific 

technical information or other 

assistance required that would enable 

the objector to accommodate those 

changes; 

(2) List steps the objector is taking to 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes on an expedited basis; 

(3) State the earliest possible date (not 

to exceed six months from the date the 

incumbent LEC gave its original public 

notice under this section) by which the 

objector anticipates that it can 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes, assuming it receives the 

technical information or other 

assistance requested under paragraph 

(h) of this section; 

(4) Provide any other information 

relevant to the objection; and 

(5) Provide the following affidavit, 

executed by the objector’s president, 

chief executive officer, or other 

corporate officer or official, who has 

appropriate authority to bind the 

corporation, and knowledge of the 

details of the objector’s inability to 

adjust its network on a timely basis: 

‘‘I, (name and title), under oath and 

subject to penalty for perjury, certify 

that I have read this objection, that the 

statements contained in it are true, that 

there is good ground to support the 

objection, and that it is not interposed 

for purposes of delay. I have appropriate 

authority to make this certification on 

behalf of (objector) and I agree to 

provide any information the 

Commission may request to allow the 

Commission to evaluate the truthfulness 

and validity of the statements contained 

in this objection.’’ 

(h) Responses to Objections. If an 

objection is filed, an incumbent LEC 

shall have until no later than the 

sixtieth business day following the 

release of the Commission’s public 

notice to file with the Commission a 

response to the objection and to serve 

the response on all parties that filed 

objections. An incumbent LEC’s 

response must: 

(1) Provide information responsive to 

the allegations and concerns identified 

by the objectors; 

(2) State whether any implementation 

date(s) proposed by the objector(s) are 

acceptable; 

(3) Indicate any specific technical 

assistance that the incumbent LEC is 

willing to give to the objectors; and 

(4) Provide any other relevant 

information. 

(i) Resolution of Objections to Timing. 

If an objection based on timing is filed 

pursuant to paragraph (h) of this 

section, then the Chief, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, will issue an order 

determining a reasonable public notice 

period, provided however, that if an 

incumbent LEC does not file a response 

within the time period allotted, or if the 

incumbent LEC’s response accepts the 

latest implementation date stated by an 

objector, then the incumbent LEC’s 

public notice shall be deemed amended 

to specify the implementation date 

requested by the objector, without 

further Commission action. An 

incumbent LEC must amend its public 

notice to reflect any change in the 

applicable implementation date 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

■ 6. Section 51.333 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows 

and removing paragraph (f). 

§ 51.333 Notice of network changes: Short 

term notice, objections thereto. 

* * * * * 

(b) Implementation date. The 

Commission will release a public notice 

of filings of such short term notices. The 

public notice will set forth the docket 

number assigned by the Commission to 

the incumbent LEC’s notice. The 

effective date of the network changes 

referenced in those filings shall be 

deemed final on the tenth business day 

after the release of the Commission’s 

public notice, unless an objection is 

filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Objection procedures for short 

term notice. An objection to an 

incumbent LEC’s short term notice may 

be filed by an information service 

provider or telecommunications service 

provider that directly interconnects 

with the incumbent LEC’s network. 

Such objections must be filed with the 

Commission, and served on the 

incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth 

business day following the release of the 

Commission’s public notice. All 

objections filed under this section must: 

(1) State specific reasons why the 

objector cannot accommodate the 

incumbent LEC’s changes by the date 

stated in the incumbent LEC’s public 

notice and must indicate any specific 

technical information or other 

assistance required that would enable 

the objector to accommodate those 

changes; 

(2) List steps the objector is taking to 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes on an expedited basis; 

(3) State the earliest possible date (not 

to exceed six months from the date the 

incumbent LEC gave its original public 

notice under this section) by which the 

objector anticipates that it can 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes, assuming it receives the 

technical information or other 

assistance requested under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section; 

(4) Provide any other information 

relevant to the objection; and 

(5) Provide the following affidavit, 

executed by the objector’s president, 

chief executive officer, or other 

corporate officer or official, who has 

appropriate authority to bind the 

corporation, and knowledge of the 

details of the objector’s inability to 

adjust its network on a timely basis: 

‘‘I, (name and title), under oath and 

subject to penalty for perjury, certify 

that I have read this objection, that the 

statements contained in it are true, that 

there is good ground to support the 

objection, and that it is not interposed 

for purposes of delay. I have appropriate 

authority to make this certification on 

behalf of (objector) and I agree to 

provide any information the 

Commission may request to allow the 

Commission to evaluate the truthfulness 

and validity of the statements contained 

in this objection.’’ 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30776 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1250 

[Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4)] 

United States Rail Service Issues— 

Performance Data Reporting 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board 

(the Board or STB), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Through this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Board is 

proposing to establish new regulations 

requiring all Class I railroads and the 

Chicago Transportation Coordination 

Office (CTCO), through its Class I 

members, to report certain service 

performance metrics on a weekly basis. 

DATES: Comments are due by March 2, 

2015. Reply comments are due by April 

29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in the traditional paper 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See generally National Grain and Feed 

Association Letter, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724 

(filed May 6, 2014); Western Coal Traffic League 

Letter, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724 (filed Apr. 17, 

2014); Apr. Hr’g Tr. 154–155, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, 

EP 724 (Apr. 10, 2014); Western Coal Traffic League 

Statement 5–6, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724 (filed 

Sept. 5, 2014); Sept. Hr’g Tr. 48, 290, U.S. Rail Serv. 

Issues, EP 724 (Sept. 4, 2014). 

2AAR Letter 1, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues—Data 

Collection, EP 724 (Sub-No. 3) (filed Oct. 22, 2014). 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

comply with the instructions at the EFILING link on the Board’s Web site, at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 724 (SubNo. 4), 395 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001. 

Copies of written comments and 

replies will be available for viewing and 

self-copying at the Board’s Public 

Docket Room, Room 131, and will be 

posted to the Board’s Web site. Copies 

will also be available (for a fee) by 

contacting the Board’s Chief Records 

Officer at (202) 245–0238 or 395 E Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Quinn at (202) 245–0382. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Surface Transportation Board has been 

closely monitoring the rail industry’s 

performance since service problems 

began to emerge in late 2013. Service 

challenges have impacted a wide range 

of commodities, including grain, 

fertilizer, ethanol, coal, automobiles, 

chemicals, propane, consumer goods, 

crude oil, and industrial commodities. 

In response to the service challenges 

affecting this broad cross-section of rail 

shippers, the Board held two public 

hearings this year, in April in 

Washington, DC, and in September in 

Fargo, N.D., to provide the opportunity 

for interested persons to report on 

service problems, to hear from rail 

industry executives on plans to address 

rail service problems, and to explore 

additional options to improve service. 

During and after these hearings, 

shippers expressed concerns about the 

lack of publicly available information 

related to rail service and requested 

access to performance data from the 

railroads to better understand the scope, 

magnitude, and impact of the service 

issues,1 as well as the underlying causes 

and the prospects for recovery. 

Based on these concerns and our own 

need to better understand railroad 

operating conditions, on October 8, 

2014, the Board ordered all Class I 

railroads and the Class I railroad 

members of the CTCO to file weekly 

reports on an interim basis, containing 

specific performance data. See U.S. Rail 

Serv. Issues—Data Collection (Interim 

Data Order), EP 724 (Sub-No. 3) (STB 

served Oct. 8, 2014). Specifically, 

railroads were asked to report weekly 

average train speeds, weekly average 

terminal dwell times, weekly average 

cars online, number of trains held short 

of destination or scheduled interchange, 

and loading metrics for grain and coal 

service, among other items. The data 

were intended to give both the Board 

and its stakeholders access to near realtime information about the operations 

and performance of the Class I railroads, 

and the fluidity of the Chicago gateway. 

In addition, the data were expected to 

assist rail shippers in making logistics 

decisions, planning operations and 

production, and mitigating losses amid 

the challenging railroad operating 

environment. 

On October 22, 2014, the Class I 

railroads and the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) (on behalf of 

the CTCO) filed the first set of weekly 

reports in response to the Interim Data 

Order. As requested by the Board, each 

carrier also provided an explanation of 

its methodology for deriving 

performance data in response to each 

request. Generally, the responses 

corresponded to the elements of the 

Interim Data Order; however, some 

railroads approached individual 

requests differently, leading to 

variations in the reported data. The 

different approaches primarily were due 

to the railroads’ disparate data-keeping 

systems, different railroad operating 

practices, and/or unintended 

ambiguities in certain requests. Certain 

railroads also departed from the Board’s 

prescribed reporting in order to 

maintain consistency with their own 

weekly data runs and analysis. For the 

most part, however, railroads made 

reasonable efforts to respond to each 

request, substituting analogous data 

when precise information could not 

readily be derived. 

In addition to the weekly data reports, 

AAR, on behalf of its Class I freight 

railroad members (except Canadian 

Pacific Railway Company (CP)), 

submitted a letter to the Board 

indicating that it believes the public, the 

Board, and the railroads would have 

benefited from ‘‘[a] constructive public 

discourse regarding service data [which] 

could have led to a more productive and 

less burdensome collection of 

information that would have satisfied 

the Board’s regulatory objectives.’’ 2

With the first several weeks of filings in 

response to the Interim Data Order 

complete, we invite public comment to 

determine whether to establish new 

regulations for permanent reporting and 

to receive constructive input to revise, 

as necessary, and improve the existing 

data reporting structure. 

The weekly filings have allowed the 

Board and rail stakeholders to monitor 

the industry’s performance in near realtime, and allowed the Board to begin to 

develop baseline performance data. 

Based on the Board’s experience with 

the reporting to date, and as expressly 

contemplated in the Interim Data Order, 

the Board is now moving forward with 

a rulemaking to determine whether to 

establish new regulations for permanent 

reporting by the members of the Class I 

railroad industry, the Class I carriers 

operating in the Chicago gateway, and 

the CTCO through its Class I members. 

The permanent collection of 

performance data on a weekly basis 

would allow continuity of the current 

reporting and improve the Board’s 

ability to identify and help resolve 

future regional or national service 

disruptions more quickly, should they 

occur. Transparency would also benefit 

rail shippers and other stakeholders, by 

helping them to better plan operations 

and make informed decisions based on 

publicly available, near real-time data, 

and their own analysis of performance 

trends over time. 

The proposed data requirements have 

been designed to impose as small a 

burden as possible on the carriers that 

would be subject to the rule, while 

achieving the Board’s goal of continued 

rail service performance transparency. 

The Board believes that the benefit to 

the Board, rail shippers, and other 

stakeholders would outweigh the 

burden of reporting under the proposed 

rule. The data collected pursuant to the 

rule would continue to provide for 

service performance transparency in the 

industry and allow the Board to more 

rapidly identify and respond to service 

performance issues. 

Accordingly, the Board seeks public 

comments on proposed new regulations 

to be codified at 49 CFR 1250.1–1250.3 

to require Class I rail carriers, Class I 

carriers operating in the Chicago 

gateway, and the CTCO, through its 

Class I members, to submit to the Board 

weekly reports on railroad performance. 

The proposed reporting requirements 

are based on and include those 

contained in the Interim Data Order, but 

include the following modifications: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 475 

• In subsection (a), instructions have 

been added to Requests nos. 1–3 to align 

the requests with performance data 

being published by AAR; 

• In subsection (a), Request no. 4 has 

been modified to capture average dwell 

time for ‘‘loaded’’ unit trains at origin 

‘‘or interchange receipt,’’ and to clarify 

that the data is to be reported by the 

railroad receiving the loaded train at a 

shipper facility or interchange location; 

• In subsection (a), Requests nos. 5 

and 6 have been revised to cure 

ambiguities that emerged during the 

initial reporting periods and to clarify 

the data intended to be reported. 

Request no. 5 is intended to capture 

every instance during the reporting 

week in which specific types of loaded 

or empty trains are held at a location on 

the reporting railroad’s system short of 

destination or scheduled interchange for 

longer than six consecutive hours. 

Request no. 6 is intended to capture an 

average of daily snap shots of cars in 

specific services that have not moved 

for the specified durations (48–120 

hours; greater than 120 hours); 

• In subsection (a), Request no. 9 has 

been deleted from the proposed 

requirements because it appears to have 

limited application to the carriers’ 

disparate grain unit train operations; 

however, we ask that commenters 

propose an appropriate measure to 

capture performance data for grain unit 

train operations; 

• In subsection (a), Request no. 10 has 

been renumbered as Request no. 9 and 

revised to allow carriers to report 

weekly total coal unit train loadings or 

weekly total coal car loadings by coal 

production region; 

• In subsection (b), Request no. 1 has 

been modified to clarify that the request 

is for the average daily car ‘‘volume’’ at 

the key Chicago yards, meaning cars on 

hand, rather than cars processed; 

• In subsection (b), Request no. 2 has 

been modified to clarify the method for 

deriving trains held outside the Chicago 

gateway; 

• A new item has been added in 

subsection (d) to request a quarterly 

listing of all work-in-progress, major rail 

infrastructure projects, including project 

location by state, planned completion 

date for the project, percentage complete 

at the time of reporting, and project 

description and purpose. For purposes 

of this request, ‘‘work-in-progress’’ 

refers to projects for which ground 

breaking has taken place, ‘‘major’’ refers 

to any rail infrastructure project 

budgeted at $25 million or more over 

the life of the project, and ‘‘rail 

infrastructure’’ refers to capacity 

expansion or enhancement projects, 

excluding maintenance-of-way. 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06JA15.055</GPH>

Table 1. Major changes to the data requests between the Interim Data Order and the 

proposed rule. 

Interim Data Order Proposed Rule Description of Change 

Subsection (a), Request nos. Subsection (a), Request Adds instructions to align 

1-3: Train speed, terminal nos. 1-3 (with added requests with performance 

dwell time, total cars on instructions) data being published by 

line. AAR. 

Subsection (a), Request no. Subsection (a), Request no. Captures average dwell 

4: Weekly average dwell 4: Weekly average dwell time for loaded unit trains at 

time at origin for unit train time at origin or origin or interchange 

shipments sorted by grain, interchange location for receipt, and clarifies that the 

coal, automotive, crude oil, loaded unit train shipments data is to be reported by the 

ethanol, and all other unit sorted by grain, coal, railroad receiving the 

trains. automotive, crude oil, loaded train. 

ethanol, and all other unit 

trains .... The data is to 

be reported by the 

receiving carrier. 

Subsection (a), Request no. Subsection (a), Request no. Adds instructions to cure 

5: Trains held short of 5 (with added instructions) ambiguities that emerged 

destination or scheduled during the initial reporting 

interchange for longer than periods. 

six hours. 

Subsection (a), Request no. Subsection (a), Request no. Adds instructions to cure 

6: The v1eekly total number 6: The daily average ambiguities and clarifies 

of loaded and empty cars, number of loaded and data intended to be 

stated separately, in revenue empty cars, operating in reported. 

service that have not moved normal movement and 

in ... sorted by the billed to an origin or 

following classifications destination, which have 

(intermodal, grain, coal, not moved in ... sorted by 

crude oil, automotive, service type (intermodal, 

ethanol, or all other) .... grain, coal, crude oil, 

automotive, ethanol, or all 

other). 

Subsection (a), Request no. Deleted Prior request no. 9 appears 

9: Plan versus performance to have limited application 

for grain shuttle (or to the carriers' disparate 

dedicated grain train) round grain unit train operations; 

trips. commenters are asked to 

propose an appropriate 

measure to capture 

performance data for grain 

unit train operations. 

Subsection (a), Request no. Subsection (a), Request no. Allows carriers to report 

1 O· A· ....... ~= ,.1,..,;1. coal unit •• 1 ~·~o~ ~~ ... 9: Weekly total coal unit weekly total coal unit train 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 477 

3Apr. Hr’g Tr. 186–87, 208, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, 

EP 724 (Apr. 10, 2014); North Dakota Public Service 

Commission Comments 3, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 

724 (filed Sept. 4, 2014). 

4CP Comment 1, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues—Data 

Collection, EP 724 (Sub-No. 3) (filed Oct. 22, 2014). 

5 Id. 

6On October 24, 2014, The Fertilizer Institute 

submitted a letter asking the Board to require 

separate reporting with regard to fertilizer 

shipments. The Fertilizer Institute Letter 1–2, U.S. 

Rail Serv. Issues—Data Collection, EP 724 (Sub-No. 

3) (filed Oct. 24, 2014). 

7See KCS Petition for Waiver, U.S. Rail Serv. 

Issues—Data Collection, EP 724 (Sub-No. 3) (filed 

Oct. 22, 2014). 

8Railinc Corporation provides information 

technology, applications, and electronic data 

services to the North American freight railway 

industry. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAR. 

See Railinc, Company Overview, https://

www.railinc.com/rportal/company-overview (last 

visited Dec. 19, 2014). 

As the Board noted in the Interim 

Data Order, at both hearings, carriers 

cited congestion in Chicago as one 

significant cause of the service 

problems.3 While congestion in the area 

was particularly acute last winter, it has 

been a recurring problem at this crucial 

network hub. The Board continues to 

recognize the longstanding importance 

of Chicago as a hub in national rail 

operations and the impact that recent 

extreme congestion in Chicago has had 

on rail service in the Upper Midwest 

and nationwide. CP asserts, in its 

response to the Interim Data Order, that 

if either the Belt Railway of Chicago 

(BRC) or the Indiana Harbor Belt 

Railroad (IHB) becomes congested, the 

Chicago Terminal then becomes 

congested and that congestion then 

‘‘reverberates throughout the system.’’ 4

CP urges the Board to require BRC and 

IHB to report appropriate metrics on a 

weekly basis.5 Under the Interim Data 

Order, AAR has been reporting average 

daily car counts in key Chicago area 

yards, including Clearing and Blue 

Island, which are BRC and IHB yards, 

respectively. Commenters are invited to 

propose the reporting of additional 

metrics, from the BRC and IHB or 

others, that could improve oversight and 

support a better understanding of 

service issues in the Chicago area. 

Finally, the Board in the Interim Data 

Order directed the Class I members of 

the CTCO to file a general summary of 

the CTCO’s service contingency 

protocols. However, given that the 

Chicago gateway remains a concern, we 

believe that having more information 

about how the Class I carriers are 

managing operations in Chicago would 

be beneficial. Accordingly, the Class I 

members of the CTCO are directed to 

file a detailed explanation of the CTCO’s 

service contingency protocols, including 

the protocol triggers and 

countermeasures. Should the members 

need to provide proprietary information 

to sufficiently explain the CTCO 

protocols (such as car counts and 

specific locations that trigger the 

protocols), they may request a protective 

order. 

The Board also asks that Class I 

railroads comment on the capabilities of 

their respective internal data-keeping 

systems for capturing and generating 

data and the appropriate timeframe (i.e., 

starting day and ending day) for the 

reporting week and for filing reports. 

Commenters are also asked to address 

whether and how geographical 

parameters could be practically 

incorporated into the requests in order 

to identify parts of the freight rail 

network experiencing acute congestion 

or service issues. The proposed rules 

address the same specific commodities 

covered under the Interim Data Order. 

If commenters believe it would advance 

the Board’s goals, they may include 

metrics focused on other commodities 

along with an explanation of why it 

would be beneficial to collect that 

information.6 Additionally, commenters 

may propose revised definitions for 

terms used in the data requests, such as 

‘‘unit train,’’ if they believe such revised 

definitions would be necessary or 

helpful to the uniform collection of 

data, and methodologies for deriving 

data. 

Additionally, on October 22, 2014, 

Kansas City Southern Railway Company 

(KCS) filed a petition for a waiver from 

certain requirements due to the nature 

of its grain business and its very limited 

number of customers in a discrete 

number of states in its service territory.7

In response to the petition, the Board 

proposes to exempt KCS from filing 

state-specific information in response to 

Request nos. 7 and 8. Commenters may 

address whether this exemption is 

appropriate. 

Because the Board is considering 

whether to implement a standardized 

set of weekly reporting requirements, 

proposals for new reporting items 

should take into account whether they 

may be obtained from data likely 

maintained by railroads in the ordinary 

course of business. Proposed items 

should not call for narrative responses 

or impose requirements that vary from 

week to week. Also, the Class I railroads 

are asked to comment on which requests 

can be reported through AAR or Railinc 

Corporation 8 on behalf of the industry. 

In seeking public comments, the 

Board requests that interested 

stakeholders evaluate the utility of each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06JA15.056</GPH>
478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9The Small Business Administration’s Office of 

Size Standards has established a size standard for 

rail transportation, pursuant to which a line-haul 

railroad is considered small if its number of 

employees is 1,500 or less, and a short line railroad 

is considered small if its number of employees is 

500 or less. 13 CFR 121.201 (industry subsector 

482). 

data request, offer proposed 

modifications, and/or propose other 

requests that would assist the Board and 

the public in gaining complete and 

accurate near real-time assessment of 

the performance of Class I railroads. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, generally 

requires a description and analysis of 

new rules that would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In drafting a 

rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess 

the effect that its regulation will have on 

small entities; (2) analyze effective 

alternatives that may minimize a 

regulation’s impact; and (3) make the 

analysis available for public comment. 

§§ 601–604. In its notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the agency must either 

include an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, § 603(a), or certify that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

‘‘significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ § 605(b). The 

impact must be a direct impact on small 

entities ‘‘whose conduct is 

circumscribed or mandated’’ by the 

proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v. 

Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 

2009). 

The rules proposed here would not 

have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities, within the meaning of the RFA. 

The reporting requirements would 

apply only to Class I rail carriers, which, 

under the Board’s regulations, have 

annual carrier operating revenues of 

$250 million or more in 1991 dollars 

(adjusted for inflation using 2013 data, 

the revenue threshold for a Class I rail 

carrier is $467,063,129). Class I carriers 

generally do not fall within the Small 

Business Administration’s definition of 

a small business for the rail 

transportation industry.9 Therefore, the 

Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the RFA. A copy of this 

decision will be served upon the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, Office of 

Advocacy, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Washington, DC 20416. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3549, and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the 

Board seeks comments regarding: (1) 

Whether the collection of information in 

the proposed rule, and further described 

in the Appendix, is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the Board, including whether the 

collection has practical utility; (2) the 

accuracy of the Board’s burden 

estimates; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (4) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, when 

appropriate. Information pertinent to 

these issues is included in the 

Appendix. The collection in this 

proposed rule will be submitted to OMB 

for review as required under 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. 

This proposal would not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

It is ordered: 

1. Comments are due by March 2, 

2015. Reply comments are due by April 

29, 2015. 

2. A copy of this decision will be 

served upon the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. 

Small Business Administration. 

3. Notice of this decision will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

4. The Class I members of the CTCO 

shall file a detailed explanation of the 

CTCO’s service contingency protocols, 

including the protocol triggers and 

countermeasures, by January 14, 2015. 

5. This decision is effective on its 

service date. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 1250 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Railroads, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements. 

Decided: December 30, 2014. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice 

Chairman Miller, and Commissioner 

Begeman. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Surface Transportation 

Board proposes to amend title 49, 

chapter X, subchapter D, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations by adding Part 1250 

as follows: 

PART 1250—RAILROAD 

PERFORMANCE DATA REPORTING 

Sec. 

1250.1 Reporting Requirements 

1250.2 Definitions 

1250.3 Data Elements 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721 and 11145. 

§ 1250.1 Reporting Requirements. 

Each Class I railroad is required to 

report to the Board on a weekly basis, 

the performance data set forth in 

§ 1250.3(a)(1)–(9). The Class I railroads 

operating at the Chicago gateway are 

required to jointly report on a weekly 

basis the performance data set forth in 

§ 1250.3(b)(1)–(2). The reports required 

under § 1250.3(b)(1)–(2) may be 

submitted by the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR). The data 

must be reported to the Board between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on 

Tuesday of each week, covering the 

previous reporting week (12:01 a.m. 

Sunday–11:59 p.m. Saturday). In the 

event that a particular Tuesday is a 

Federal holiday or falls on a day when 

STB offices are closed for any other 

reason, then the data should be reported 

on the next business day when the 

offices are open. The data must be filed 

in Excel format, using an electronic 

spreadsheet made available by the 

Board’s Office of Public Assistance, 

Governmental Affairs, and Compliance 

(OPAGAC), and should be emailed to 

data.reporting@stb.dot.gov. Each week’s 

report must include data only for that 

week, and should not include data for 

previous weeks. Unless otherwise 

provided, the data will be publicly 

available and posted on the Board’s Web 

site. 

§ 1250.2 Definitions. 

(a) Unit train. Unit train refers to a 

train comprising 50 or more railcars of 

the same or similar type, carrying a 

single commodity in bulk. 

§ 1250.3 Railroad Performance Data 

Elements. 

(a) Each Class I railroad must report 

the following performance data 

elements for the reporting week. 

However, with regard to elements 7 

and 8, Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company is not required to report 

information by State, but instead shall 

report system-wide data. 

(1) System-average train speed by the 

following train types for the reporting 

week. (Train speed should be measured 

for line-haul movements between 

terminals. The average speed for each 

train type should be calculated by 

dividing total train-miles by total hours 

operated.) 

(i) Intermodal 

(ii) Grain unit 

(iii) Coal unit 

(iv) Automotive unit 

(v) Crude oil unit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 479 

(vi) Ethanol unit 

(vii) Manifest 

(viii) All other 

(2) Weekly average terminal dwell 

time, measured in hours, excluding cars 

on run-through trains (i.e., cars that 

arrive at, and depart from, a terminal on 

the same through train) for the carrier’s 

system and its 10 largest terminals in 

terms of railcars processed. (Terminal 

dwell is the average time a car resides 

at a specified terminal location 

expressed in hours.) 

(3) Weekly average cars on line by the 

following car types for the reporting 

week. (Each railroad is requested to 

average its daily on-line inventory of 

freight cars. Articulated cars should be 

counted as a single unit. Cars on private 

tracks (e.g., at a customer’s facility) 

should be counted on the last railroad 

on which they were located. 

Maintenance-of-way cars and other cars 

in railroad service are to be excluded.) 

(i) Box 

(ii) Covered hopper 

(iii) Gondola 

(iv) Intermodal 

(v) Multilevel (Automotive) 

(vi) Open hopper 

(vii) Tank 

(viii) Other 

(ix) Total 

(4) Weekly average dwell time at 

origin or interchange location for loaded 

unit train shipments sorted by grain, 

coal, automotive, crude oil, ethanol, and 

all other unit trains. (For the purposes 

of this data element, dwell time refers 

to the time period from release of a unit 

train at origin or interchange location 

until actual movement by the receiving 

carrier. The data is to be reported by the 

receiving carrier.) 

(5) The weekly total number of loaded 

and empty trains held short of 

destination or scheduled interchange for 

longer than six consecutive hours sorted 

by train type (intermodal, grain unit, 

coal unit, automotive unit, crude oil 

unit, ethanol unit, other unit, and all 

other) and by cause (crew, locomotive 

power, track maintenance, mechanical 

issue, or other (explain)). (This request 

is intended to capture every instance 

during the reporting week in which a 

loaded or empty train is held at a 

location on the reporting railroad’s 

system short of its destination or 

scheduled interchange for longer than 

six consecutive hours. For example, if, 

during a reporting week, a coal unit 

train originating from the Powder River 

Basin, and scheduled to be interchanged 

in St. Louis were held for six 

consecutive hours in Nebraska due to 

crew unavailability and held again for 

nine consecutive hours in Iowa due to 

track maintenance, during the same 

reporting week, then this train would be 

reported twice in the weekly report to 

the STB (once for ‘‘crew’’ and once for 

‘‘track maintenance’’).) 

(6) The daily average number of 

loaded and empty cars, operating in 

normal movement and billed to an 

origin or destination, which have not 

moved in (a) more than 120 hours; and 

(b) more than 48 hours, but less than or 

equal to 120 hours, sorted by service 

type (intermodal, grain, coal, crude oil, 

automotive, ethanol, or all other). In 

order to derive the daily averages for the 

reporting week, carriers are requested to 

run a same-time snapshot each day of 

the reporting week, capturing cars 

within each category. The number of 

cars captured on the daily snapshot for 

each category should be added, and 

then divided by the number of days in 

the reporting week (typically seven 

days). In deriving this data, carriers 

should include cars in normal service 

anywhere on their system, but should 

not include cars placed at a customer 

facility; in constructive placement; 

placed for interchange to another 

carrier; in bad order status; in storage; 

or operating in railroad service (e.g., 

ballast). 

(7) The weekly total number of grain 

cars loaded and billed, reported by 

State, aggregated for the following 

Standard Transportation Commodity 

Codes (STCCs): 01131 (barley), 01132 

(corn), 01133 (oats), 01135 (rye), 01136 

(sorghum grains), 01137 (wheat), 01139 

(grain, not elsewhere classified), 01144 

(soybeans), 01341 (beans, dry), 01342 

(peas, dry), and 01343 (cowpeas, lentils, 

or lupines). ‘‘Total grain cars loaded and 

billed’’ includes cars in shuttle service; 

dedicated train service; reservation, 

lottery, open and other ordering 

systems; and, private cars. Additionally, 

separately report the total cars loaded 

and billed in shuttle service (or 

dedicated train service) versus total cars 

loaded and billed in all other ordering 

systems, including private cars. 

(8) For the aggregated STCCs in Item 

7, report by State the following: 

(i) The total number of overdue car 

orders (a car order equals one car; 

overdue means not delivered within the 

delivery window); 

(ii) Average number of days late for all 

overdue grain car orders; 

(iii) The total number of new orders 

received during the past week; 

(iv) The total number of orders filled 

during the past week; and 

(v) The number of orders cancelled, 

respectively, by shipper and railroad 

during the past week. 

(9) Weekly total coal unit train 

loadings or car loadings for the 

reporting week by coal production 

region. 

(b) The Class I railroads operating at 

the Chicago gateway (or AAR on behalf 

of the Class I railroads operating at the 

Chicago gateway) must jointly report the 

following performance data elements for 

the reporting week: 

(1) Average daily car volume in the 

following Chicago area yards: Barr, 

Bensenville, Blue Island, Calumet, 

Cicero, Clearing, Corwith, Gibson, Kirk, 

Markham, and Proviso for the reporting 

week; and 

(2) Average daily number of trains 

held for delivery to Chicago sorted by 

receiving carrier for the reporting week. 

The average daily number should be 

derived by taking a same time snapshot 

each day of the reporting week, 

capturing the trains held for each 

railroad at that time, and then adding 

those snapshots together and dividing 

by the days in the reporting week. (For 

purposes of this request, ‘‘held for 

delivery’’ refers to a train staged by the 

delivering railroad short of its 

scheduled arrival at the Chicago 

gateway at the request of the receiving 

railroad, and that has missed its 

scheduled window for arrival.) 

(Note: If Chicago terminal yards not 

identified in § (b)(1), are included in the 

Chicago Transportation Coordination 

Office’s (CTCO) assessment of the 

fluidity of the gateway for purposes of 

implementing service contingency 

measures, then the data requested in 

§ (b)(1) shall also be reported for those 

yards.) 

(c) The Class I railroad members of 

the CTCO (or one Class I railroad 

member of the CTCO designated to file 

on behalf of all Class I railroad 

members, or AAR) must: 

(1) File a written notice with the 

Board when the CTCO changes its 

operating Alert Level status, within one 

business day of that change in status. 

(2) If the CTCO revises its protocol of 

service contingency measures, file with 

the Board a detailed explanation of the 

new protocol, including both triggers 

and countermeasures, within seven days 

of its adoption. 

(d) On a quarterly basis, each Class I 

railroad must report all work-inprogress, major rail infrastructure 

projects, including location by State, 

planned completion date for each 

project, percentage complete for each 

project at the time of reporting, and 

project description and purpose. For 

purposes of this request, ‘‘work-inprogress’’ refers to projects for which 

ground-breaking has taken place; 

‘‘major’’ refers to projects whose budget 

equals or exceeds $25 million over the 

life of the project; and ‘‘rail 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

infrastructure’’ refers to network 

capacity expansion or enhancement, 

excluding maintenance-of-way. The 

data must be reported to the Board 

between 9AM and 5PM Eastern Time on 

the first Tuesday of each quarter. In the 

event that the first Tuesday of a quarter 

is a Federal holiday or falls on a day 

when STB offices are closed for any 

other reason, then the data should be 

reported on the next business day when 

the offices are open. 

The following will not appear in the 

CFR: 

Appendix 

The additional information below is 

included to assist those who may wish to 

submit comments pertinent to review under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act: 

Description of Collection 

Title: Rail Service Data Collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2140–XXXX. 

STB Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: New collection. 

Respondents: Class I railroads (on behalf of 

themselves and the Chicago Transportation 

Coordination Office (‘‘CTCO’’)). 

Number of Respondents: Seven. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

proposed rules seek three related responses, 

as indicated in the table below. 

TABLE—ESTIMATED TIME PER

RESPONSE

Type of responses 

Estimated 

time per response 

(hours) 

Weekly ...................................... 3 

Quarterly ................................... 3 

On occasion .............................. 3 

Frequency: The frequencies of the three 

related collections sought under the 

proposed rules are set forth in the table 

below. 

TABLE—FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES

Type of responses 

Frequency 

of responses 

(per year) 

Weekly ...................................... 52 

Quarterly ................................... 4 

On occasion .............................. 2 

Total Burden Hours (annually including all 

respondents): The recurring burden hours are 

estimated to be no more than 1,182 hours per 

year, as derived in the table below. In 

addition, there are some one-time, start-up 

costs of approximately 2 hours for each 

respondent filing a quarterly report that must 

be added to the first year’s total burden 

hours. To avoid inflating the estimated total 

annual hourly burden, the two-hour start-up 

burden has been divided by three and spread 

over the three-year approval period. Thus, 

the total annual burden hours for each of the 

three years are estimated at no more than 

1,186.67 hours per year. 

TABLE—TOTAL BURDEN HOURS

[Per year] 

Type of responses Number of respondents 

Estimated time 

per response 

(hours) 

Frequency of 

responses 

(per year) 

Total yearly 

burden hours 

Weekly ............................................................................................................. 7 3 52 1,092

Quarterly .......................................................................................................... 7 3 4 84 

On occasion ..................................................................................................... 1 3 2 6 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,182 

Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: None 

identified. Reports will be submitted 

electronically to the Board. 

Needs and Uses: The new information 

collections would allow the Board to better 

understand current service issues and 

potentially to identify and resolve possible 

future regional and national service 

disruptions more quickly. Transparency 

would also benefit rail shippers and 

stakeholders, by allowing them to better plan 

operations and make informed business 

decisions based on publicly-available realtime data, and their own analysis of 

performance trends over time. 

Retention Period: Information in this report 

will be maintained in the Board’s files for 10 

years, after which it is transferred to the 

National Archives. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30940 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS