Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 42566-42568 [2016-15437]
Download as PDF
42566
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
other small entities to determine
whether the rule is expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The provisions
of this interim final rule may apply
specifically to all businesses using
pipelines to transport hazardous liquids,
gas, and LNG in interstate commerce.
Therefore, PHMSA certifies this rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule does not impose unfunded
mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does
not result in costs of $155,000,000 or
more, adjusted for inflation, in any year
for either state, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, and is the leastburdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the rule.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This interim final rule imposes no
new requirements for recordkeeping or
reporting.
I. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321–4375), requires federal
agencies to consider the consequences
of major federal actions and prepare a
detailed statement on actions
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. When developing
potential regulatory requirements,
PHMSA evaluates those requirements to
consider the environmental impact of
these amendments. Specifically,
PHMSA evaluates the risk of release and
resulting environmental impact; risk to
human safety, including any risk to first
responders; if the proposed regulation
would be carried out in a defined
geographic area; and the resources,
especially in environmentally sensitive
areas, that could be impacted by any
proposed regulations.
This interim final rule would be
generally applicable to pipeline
operators, and would not be carried out
in a defined geographic area. The
adjusted, increased civil penalties listed
in this interim final rule may act as a
deterrent to those violating the Federal
Pipeline Safety Laws, or any PHMSA
regulation or order issued thereunder.
This may result in a positive
environmental impact as a result of
increased compliance with the Federal
Pipeline Safety Laws and any PHMSA
regulations or orders issued thereunder.
Based on the above discussion, PHMSA
concludes there are no significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
environmental impacts associated with
this interim final rule.
section 701; Pub. L. No: 112–90, section 2;
Pub. L. 101–410, sections 4–6.
J. Privacy Act
■
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, pages 19477–78) or
online at https://
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2000/
04/11/00–8505/privacy-act-of-1974systems-of-records or https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2000–04–
11/pdf/00–8505.pdf.
K. Executive Order 13609 and
International Trade Analysis
Sections 3 and 4 of Executive Order
13609 direct an agency to conduct a
regulatory analysis and ensure that a
proposed rule does not cause
unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.
This requirement applies if a rule
constitutes a significant regulatory
action, or if a regulatory evaluation must
be prepared for the rule. This interim
final rule is not a significant regulatory
action, but a regulatory action under
Section 3(e) of Executive Order 12866.
PHMSA is not required under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 to submit a
regulatory analysis.
L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in the spring and fall of each
year. The RIN contained in the heading
of this document can be used to crossreference this action in the Unified
Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 190
Administrative practice and
procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.
In consideration of the foregoing,
PHMSA is amending 49 CFR part 190 as
follows:
PART 190—PIPELINE SAFETY
ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY
PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 190
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(b); 49 U.S.C.
60101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.97; Pub. L. 114–74,
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Section 190.223 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) though (d) to
read as follows:
§ 190.223
Maximum penalties.
(a) Any person found to have violated
a provision of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.,
or any regulation or order issued
thereunder is subject to an
administrative civil penalty not to
exceed $205,638 for each violation for
each day the violation continues, except
that the maximum administrative civil
penalty may not exceed $2,056,380 for
any related series of violations.
(b) Any person found to have violated
a provision of 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) or any
regulation or order issued thereunder is
subject to an administrative civil
penalty under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), as
adjusted by 40 CFR 19.4.
(c) Any person found to have violated
any standard or order under 49 U.S.C.
60103 is subject to an administrative
civil penalty not to exceed $75,123,
which may be in addition to other
penalties to which such person may be
subject under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) Any person who is determined to
have violated any standard or order
under 49 U.S.C. 60129 is subject to an
administrative civil penalty not to
exceed $1,194, which may be in
addition to other penalties to which
such person may be subject under
paragraph (a) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.97.
Marie Therese Dominguez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–15529 Filed 6–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Chapter X
[Docket No. EP 719]
Small Entity Size Standards Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Surface Transportation Board
(Board or STB).
ACTION: Final statement of agency
policy.
AGENCY:
On July 11, 2013, the Board
issued a notice of proposed size
standards for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, along with a request for
public comment. This decision
discusses the comment received in
response to the proposed size standards
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM
30JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and adopts the proposed standard as the
final statement of agency policy
concerning the definition of ‘‘small
business.’’
This policy statement is effective
June 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245–0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires agencies to consider the impact
of their regulations on small entities,1
analyze effective alternatives that
minimize the impact to small entities,
and make their analyses available for
public comment. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) developed ‘‘size
standards’’ to clarify the term small
business and to carry out the purposes
of the Small Business Act. Agencies can
then use the SBA’s size standards for
purposes of defining ‘‘small entities’’ to
comply with the RFA. However, an
agency may establish other definitions
for small business that are appropriate
to the agency’s activities after
consultation with the SBA’s Office of
Advocacy and after opportunity for
public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The
SBA has promulgated regulations that
classify ‘‘Line-Haul Railroads’’ with
1,500 or fewer employees and ‘‘Short
Line Railroads’’ with 500 or fewer
employees as small businesses. 13 CFR
121.201 (industry subsector 482).
On July 16, 2013, the Board served a
notice proposing its own small entity
size standards for purposes of the RFA,
along with a request for comment. 78 FR
42,484 (July 16, 2013). After consulting
with the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, the
Board proposed to establish a small
entity size standard based on its
longstanding classification system,
which classifies freight railroads as
Class I, Class II, or Class III based on
annual operating revenues.2
Specifically, the Board proposed to
define ‘‘small business’’ as only those
rail carriers that would be classified as
Class III carriers. The Board stated that
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
1 The RFA defines ‘‘small entity’’ as having the
same meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
2 Class III carriers have annual operating revenues
of $20 million or less in 1991 dollars, or
$38,060,383 or less when adjusted for inflation
using 2014 data. Class II rail carriers have annual
operating revenues of up to $250 million in 1991
dollars or up to $475,754,802 when adjusted for
inflation using 2014 data. The Board calculates the
revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the
railroad revenue thresholds on its Web site. 49 CFR
1201.1–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
it believed that this definition is more
realistic and useful than the general
definitions previously established by
the SBA. The Board also noted that this
would create consistency with the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
which in 2003 adopted the Class III
standard as its definition of a small
business.
The American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA) submitted a comment on
August 5, 2013, opposing the Board’s
proposal. ASLRRA agrees with the
SBA’s current definition of small
business, which uses the number of
employees, rather than revenue, as the
relevant metric. It maintains that
revenue is an unreliable metric for
determining whether a railroad is a
small business because railroads are ‘‘so
capital intensive their revenues must
provide a return on that huge
investment or they cannot stay in
business’’ and because ‘‘small railroad
revenues are driven largely by the types
of commodities they happen to carry.’’
(ASLRRA Comment 3) ASLRRA argues
that changing the definition would
exclude many Class II railroads from the
small business designation, and would
thus ‘‘strip them from the financial
impact review that is the right of small
entities during the rulemaking process
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.’’ (Id.) Finally, ASLRRA claims that
Class II railroads have little in common
with Class I railroads and share more
characteristics with the smaller Class III
railroads. (Id. at 4.)
Despite ASLRRA’s objection to the
use of our revenue classifications over
employee counts to define a small
business, we find that it is the more
appropriate basis for doing so. Even if,
as ASLRRA argues, there is some
variation between carriers of similar
employment levels due, in part, to the
types of commodities being shipped,
that alone does not mean that
employment level represents the better
approach to defining a small business.
As the Board explained in the notice,
the system of classifying railroads based
on revenue is used pervasively by the
Board and the railroad industry. The
agency has used revenue to classify rail
carriers since as early as 1911, and the
agency’s governing statute, precedent,
and regulations often impose different
requirements depending on the class of
carrier involved. The validity of using
revenues to define carrier size has thus
been sufficiently demonstrated over
time. ASLRRA has not demonstrated
that using a size standard based on
employment levels is superior to the
revenue basis the agency and railroad
industry have used for decades.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42567
We now address whether the
definition of small business should or
should not include Class II carriers. The
Board acknowledges ASLRRA’s
concerns regarding Class II rail carriers
and recognizes the differences between
Class I, Class II, and Class III railroads.
However, the Board does not believe
that Class II carriers should be classified
as small businesses. Under the Board’s
governing statutes and regulations,
special exceptions are made for Class III
carriers, but not Class II carriers.3 The
Board’s decision to limit the definition
of small business solely to Class III
carriers is therefore consistent with the
broader regulatory scheme and merely
formalizes what is already a common
understanding of a small business in the
railroad industry.
In addition, the Board also believes
there is significant utility in maintaining
consistency with the practices of the
Federal Railroad Administration, which
adopted the same definition of small
entity for RFA purposes. Final Policy
Statement Concerning Small Entities
Subject to the Railroad Safety Laws, 68
FR 24,891 (May 9, 2003); see also
Interim Policy Statement Concerning
Small Entities Subject to the Railroad
Safety Laws, 62 FR 43,024 (Aug. 11,
1997). Having two agencies that play
complementary roles in railroad
industry regulation use different
definitions of small business could
result in lack of uniformity in the
adoption of Federal regulations. In
particular, an entity could be considered
a small entity for purposes of FRA rules
but not a small entity for purposes of
STB rules. Not altering the Board’s
definition of a small business would
also perpetuate the incongruous
situation of the FRA relying on the
Board’s classification system as a basis
for defining a small business, but the
Board not doing so itself.
For the reasons set forth above, the
Board will define small business for the
purpose of Regulatory Flexibility Act
analyses to mean those rail carriers
classified as Class III rail carriers under
49 CFR 1201.1–1.
It is ordered:
1. For the purpose of Regulatory
Flexibility Act analyses, the Board
adopts the definition of ‘‘small
business’’ to mean those rail carriers
3 For example, the Board created a class
exemption for acquisitions of rail lines by Class III
carriers (49 CFR Subpart E—Exempt Transactions
Under 49 U.S.C. 10902 for Class III Rail Carriers);
Class III carriers are exempt from labor protective
conditions for line acquisitions and mergers (49
U.S.C. 11326(c)); and Class III carriers are the only
carriers allowed to file Feeder Line applications (49
U.S.C. 10907(a)).
E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM
30JNR1
42568
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
classified as Class III rail carriers under
49 CFR 1201.1–1.
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. This decision is effective on June
30, 2016.
Decided: June 22, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Miller, and Commissioner
Begeman. Commissioner Begeman dissented
with a separate expression.
Tia Delano,
Clearance Clerk.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
COMMISSIONER BEGEMAN,
dissenting:
I am a strong proponent of the notice
and comment process and find it
especially important given the Board’s
extreme ex parte communication
restrictions. So when the only
comments received are from the
stakeholders most affected, and those
stakeholders express strong opposition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
to a Board proposal, I think we are
obligated to carefully consider the
concerns expressed and reassess the
wisdom of our approach. Upon doing so
here, I have concluded this proposal
should be withdrawn.
The American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), which represents 550 Class
II and Class III rail carriers across the
country, filed in strong opposition to the
Board’s July 2013 proposal to alter its
small entity definition for Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes.
ASLRRA argued that the Board’s
proposal to use revenue rather than
number of employees (the measure
developed by the Small Business
Administration that agencies can use to
comply with the RFA) would effectively
lump all Class II carriers with Class I
carriers for RFA purposes, an
unreasonable outcome given the
significant differences between those
carrier types. ASLRRA further argued
that the Board’s proposal would be
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
‘‘detrimental to Class II carriers.’’ I find
ASLRRA’s concerns alarming.
I am not convinced that the action the
Board is taking today is necessary or
somehow worth the potential harms
described by ASLRRA. After all, the
majority’s decision does not dispute
ASLRRA’s claims. It appears the driving
factor in this decision is the majority’s
desire to create ‘‘consistency’’ with the
Federal Railroad Administration. While
consistency may be fine, it certainly is
not a very compelling reason since the
two agencies have used different small
business definitions for 13 years
without issue.
There are a host of stale proceedings
piled up at the Board and I am all for
the Chairman moving the docket. But if
(after three years) the majority was
merely going to dismiss the only
comment received from representatives
of the parties affected, there was no real
point in the Board inviting comment in
the first place. I dissent.
[FR Doc. 2016–15437 Filed 6–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\30JNR1.SGM
30JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42566-42568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15437]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Chapter X
[Docket No. EP 719]
Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB).
ACTION: Final statement of agency policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 11, 2013, the Board issued a notice of proposed size
standards for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, along with a
request for public comment. This decision discusses the comment
received in response to the proposed size standards
[[Page 42567]]
and adopts the proposed standard as the final statement of agency
policy concerning the definition of ``small business.''
DATES: This policy statement is effective June 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulations on small
entities,\1\ analyze effective alternatives that minimize the impact to
small entities, and make their analyses available for public comment.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) developed ``size standards'' to
clarify the term small business and to carry out the purposes of the
Small Business Act. Agencies can then use the SBA's size standards for
purposes of defining ``small entities'' to comply with the RFA.
However, an agency may establish other definitions for small business
that are appropriate to the agency's activities after consultation with
the SBA's Office of Advocacy and after opportunity for public comment.
5 U.S.C. 601(3). The SBA has promulgated regulations that classify
``Line-Haul Railroads'' with 1,500 or fewer employees and ``Short Line
Railroads'' with 500 or fewer employees as small businesses. 13 CFR
121.201 (industry subsector 482).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The RFA defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 16, 2013, the Board served a notice proposing its own small
entity size standards for purposes of the RFA, along with a request for
comment. 78 FR 42,484 (July 16, 2013). After consulting with the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, the Board proposed to establish a small entity size
standard based on its longstanding classification system, which
classifies freight railroads as Class I, Class II, or Class III based
on annual operating revenues.\2\ Specifically, the Board proposed to
define ``small business'' as only those rail carriers that would be
classified as Class III carriers. The Board stated that it believed
that this definition is more realistic and useful than the general
definitions previously established by the SBA. The Board also noted
that this would create consistency with the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), which in 2003 adopted the Class III standard as
its definition of a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $20
million or less in 1991 dollars, or $38,060,383 or less when
adjusted for inflation using 2014 data. Class II rail carriers have
annual operating revenues of up to $250 million in 1991 dollars or
up to $475,754,802 when adjusted for inflation using 2014 data. The
Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and publishes
the railroad revenue thresholds on its Web site. 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
submitted a comment on August 5, 2013, opposing the Board's proposal.
ASLRRA agrees with the SBA's current definition of small business,
which uses the number of employees, rather than revenue, as the
relevant metric. It maintains that revenue is an unreliable metric for
determining whether a railroad is a small business because railroads
are ``so capital intensive their revenues must provide a return on that
huge investment or they cannot stay in business'' and because ``small
railroad revenues are driven largely by the types of commodities they
happen to carry.'' (ASLRRA Comment 3) ASLRRA argues that changing the
definition would exclude many Class II railroads from the small
business designation, and would thus ``strip them from the financial
impact review that is the right of small entities during the rulemaking
process pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' (Id.) Finally,
ASLRRA claims that Class II railroads have little in common with Class
I railroads and share more characteristics with the smaller Class III
railroads. (Id. at 4.)
Despite ASLRRA's objection to the use of our revenue
classifications over employee counts to define a small business, we
find that it is the more appropriate basis for doing so. Even if, as
ASLRRA argues, there is some variation between carriers of similar
employment levels due, in part, to the types of commodities being
shipped, that alone does not mean that employment level represents the
better approach to defining a small business. As the Board explained in
the notice, the system of classifying railroads based on revenue is
used pervasively by the Board and the railroad industry. The agency has
used revenue to classify rail carriers since as early as 1911, and the
agency's governing statute, precedent, and regulations often impose
different requirements depending on the class of carrier involved. The
validity of using revenues to define carrier size has thus been
sufficiently demonstrated over time. ASLRRA has not demonstrated that
using a size standard based on employment levels is superior to the
revenue basis the agency and railroad industry have used for decades.
We now address whether the definition of small business should or
should not include Class II carriers. The Board acknowledges ASLRRA's
concerns regarding Class II rail carriers and recognizes the
differences between Class I, Class II, and Class III railroads.
However, the Board does not believe that Class II carriers should be
classified as small businesses. Under the Board's governing statutes
and regulations, special exceptions are made for Class III carriers,
but not Class II carriers.\3\ The Board's decision to limit the
definition of small business solely to Class III carriers is therefore
consistent with the broader regulatory scheme and merely formalizes
what is already a common understanding of a small business in the
railroad industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, the Board created a class exemption for
acquisitions of rail lines by Class III carriers (49 CFR Subpart E--
Exempt Transactions Under 49 U.S.C. 10902 for Class III Rail
Carriers); Class III carriers are exempt from labor protective
conditions for line acquisitions and mergers (49 U.S.C. 11326(c));
and Class III carriers are the only carriers allowed to file Feeder
Line applications (49 U.S.C. 10907(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Board also believes there is significant utility
in maintaining consistency with the practices of the Federal Railroad
Administration, which adopted the same definition of small entity for
RFA purposes. Final Policy Statement Concerning Small Entities Subject
to the Railroad Safety Laws, 68 FR 24,891 (May 9, 2003); see also
Interim Policy Statement Concerning Small Entities Subject to the
Railroad Safety Laws, 62 FR 43,024 (Aug. 11, 1997). Having two agencies
that play complementary roles in railroad industry regulation use
different definitions of small business could result in lack of
uniformity in the adoption of Federal regulations. In particular, an
entity could be considered a small entity for purposes of FRA rules but
not a small entity for purposes of STB rules. Not altering the Board's
definition of a small business would also perpetuate the incongruous
situation of the FRA relying on the Board's classification system as a
basis for defining a small business, but the Board not doing so itself.
For the reasons set forth above, the Board will define small
business for the purpose of Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses to mean
those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR
1201.1-1.
It is ordered:
1. For the purpose of Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses, the
Board adopts the definition of ``small business'' to mean those rail
carriers
[[Page 42568]]
classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
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. This decision is effective on June 30, 2016.
Decided: June 22, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and
Commissioner Begeman. Commissioner Begeman dissented with a separate
expression.
Tia Delano,
Clearance Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BEGEMAN, dissenting:
I am a strong proponent of the notice and comment process and find
it especially important given the Board's extreme ex parte
communication restrictions. So when the only comments received are from
the stakeholders most affected, and those stakeholders express strong
opposition to a Board proposal, I think we are obligated to carefully
consider the concerns expressed and reassess the wisdom of our
approach. Upon doing so here, I have concluded this proposal should be
withdrawn.
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA),
which represents 550 Class II and Class III rail carriers across the
country, filed in strong opposition to the Board's July 2013 proposal
to alter its small entity definition for Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) purposes. ASLRRA argued that the Board's proposal to use revenue
rather than number of employees (the measure developed by the Small
Business Administration that agencies can use to comply with the RFA)
would effectively lump all Class II carriers with Class I carriers for
RFA purposes, an unreasonable outcome given the significant differences
between those carrier types. ASLRRA further argued that the Board's
proposal would be ``detrimental to Class II carriers.'' I find ASLRRA's
concerns alarming.
I am not convinced that the action the Board is taking today is
necessary or somehow worth the potential harms described by ASLRRA.
After all, the majority's decision does not dispute ASLRRA's claims. It
appears the driving factor in this decision is the majority's desire to
create ``consistency'' with the Federal Railroad Administration. While
consistency may be fine, it certainly is not a very compelling reason
since the two agencies have used different small business definitions
for 13 years without issue.
There are a host of stale proceedings piled up at the Board and I
am all for the Chairman moving the docket. But if (after three years)
the majority was merely going to dismiss the only comment received from
representatives of the parties affected, there was no real point in the
Board inviting comment in the first place. I dissent.
[FR Doc. 2016-15437 Filed 6-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P