United States Rail Service Issues-Performance Data Reporting, 87472-87485 [2016-29131]

Agencies

• Surface Transportation Board

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87472-87485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29131]


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

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.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting a 
final rule 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, semiannual, and occasional basis.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 29, 2017. The initial 
reporting date will be February 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Fancher at (202) 245-0355. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board initiated this rulemaking 
proceeding in response to the service problems that began to emerge in 
the railroad industry in late 2013. Those service problems affected the 
transportation of 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, the Board held two public 
hearings, in April 2014 in Washington, DC, and in September 2014 in 
Fargo, ND, to allow interested persons to report on service problems, 
to hear from rail industry executives on plans to address rail service 
problems, and to explore options to improve service. During and after 
these hearings, parties 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these concerns and to better understand railroad operating 
conditions, the Board issued an order on October 8, 2014, requiring all 
Class I railroads and the Class I railroad members of the CTCO to file 
weekly reports containing specific service performance data. See U.S. 
Rail Serv. Issues--Data Collection (Interim Data Order), EP 724 (Sub-
No. 3) (STB served Oct. 8, 2014).\2\ 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, 
and loading metrics for grain and coal service, among other 
information. The data were intended to give both the Board and its 
stakeholders access to current 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 potential losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On motion of Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Board 
modified the Interim Data Order by decision served on February 23, 
2016, to allow it to discontinue reporting data related to the Rapid 
City, Pierre & Eastern Railroad, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2014, the Class I railroads and the Association of 
American Railroads (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 provided an explanation of its methodology for 
deriving performance data in response to each request. Generally, the 
reports corresponded to the elements of the Interim Data Order; 
however, some railroads approach individual requests differently, 
leading to variations in the reported data. The different approaches 
are due primarily to the railroads' disparate data-keeping systems, 
different railroad operating practices, and/or unintended ambiguities 
in certain requests. Certain railroads have also departed from the 
Board's prescribed reporting in order to maintain consistency with 
their own weekly data runs and analyses.
    The weekly filings have allowed the Board and its stakeholders to 
monitor the industry's performance and have allowed the Board to 
develop baseline data. Based on the Board's experience with the 
reporting to date, and as expressly contemplated in the Interim Data 
Order, the Board proposed new regulations for permanent reporting by 
the members of the Class I railroad industry and the CTCO, through its 
Class I members. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--Performance Data Reporting 
(NPR), EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Dec. 30, 2014).
    The proposed reporting requirements in the NPR included many of the 
requests contained in the Interim Data Order. The NPR proposed nine 
weekly metrics that would apply to Class I railroads: (1) System 
average train speed; (2) weekly average terminal dwell time; (3) weekly 
average cars online; (4) weekly average dwell time at origin and 
interchange; (5) weekly total number of loaded and empty trains held 
short of destination or scheduled interchange; (6) daily average number 
of loaded and empty cars operating in normal movement which have not 
moved in specified periods of time; (7) weekly total number of grain 
cars loaded and billed, by state; (8) for grain cars, the total overdue 
car orders, average days late, total new grain car orders in the past 
week, total orders

[[Page 87473]]

filled in the past week, and number of orders cancelled in the past 
week; and (9) weekly total coal unit train loadings or carloadings by 
region. The NPR also proposed metrics pertaining to service in Chicago 
as well as reporting on major rail infrastructure projects. Finally, 
the NPR proposed to exempt Kansas City Southern Railway Company from 
filing state-specific information in response to Request Nos. 7 and 8, 
due to the nature of its grain business and its very limited number of 
customers in a small number of states in its service territory.
    Following receipt of comments in response to the NPR, the Board 
issued an order announcing that it would waive its ex parte 
communications rules in order to allow Board staff to hold meetings 
with interested parties to develop a more complete record with regard 
to technical issues in this proceeding. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--
Performance Data Reporting, EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Nov. 9, 
2015) (with Board Member Begeman concurring in part). Following the 
meetings, the Board posted a summary of each meeting in this docket and 
then parties provided additional comments on the summaries. As a result 
of the comments and meetings, the Board issued a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--Performance Data 
Reporting (SNPR), EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Apr. 29, 2016), 
corrected, (STB served May 13, 2016). The SNPR proposed changes to six 
of the proposed reporting metrics in the NPR (Request Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 
8, and 9), modifications to the reporting week and definition of a unit 
train, and the addition of three new metrics (Request Nos. 10, 11, and 
12) (grain shuttle/dedicated grain trips per month, weekly originated 
carloads by commodity, and car order fulfillment percentage for 10 car 
types). See SNPR, slip op. at 24-26. With regard to Request No. 7 and 
No. 8, KCS was not required to report information by state, but instead 
only system-wide data. See NPR, slip op. at 7; SNPR, slip op. at 28.
    In response to the SNPR, the invitation for stakeholder meetings, 
and the NPR, the Board received a significant volume of comments and 
proposals from stakeholders. We have carefully reviewed those comments, 
proposals, and meeting summaries in order to identify both general 
themes regarding service reporting and better technical methods for 
collecting information.
    The primary purpose of this rulemaking has been to develop a set of 
performance data that will allow the agency to monitor current service 
conditions in the industry and to identify trends or aberrations, which 
may indicate problems. The cumulative data will give the Board 
reference points for measuring an individual railroad against its past 
performance. A corollary benefit is that shippers and other 
stakeholders will have access to the reported data to assist in their 
business decisions and supply-chain planning. At the same time, the 
Board has sought to make sure that any rule adopted regarding service 
data results in the collection of information that will be useful to 
the agency and its stakeholders. The Board believes that the final rule 
adopted here is an appropriate balance of considerations that will 
provide helpful information to both the agency and the public.
    These rules will be effective on January 29, 2017. Carriers will 
begin reporting on Wednesday, February 8, 2017.\3\ The data required 
under 49 CFR 1250.2 and 1250.3(a) must be emailed to 
data.reporting@stb.gov, in Microsoft Excel or other format specified by 
the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and 
Compliance (OPAGAC). The narrative data required under 49 CFR 1250.3(b) 
and 1250.4 must be reported to the Director of OPAGAC and emailed to 
data.reporting@stb.gov. Any updates to the method and form for 
reporting data will be posted on the Board's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With the adoption of these final rules, the Board is 
concurrently issuing a decision in U.S. Rail Service Issues, Docket 
No. EP 724 and U.S. Rail Service Issues--Data Collection, Docket No. 
EP 724 (Sub-No. 3), which will terminate those proceedings and 
terminate reporting under the Interim Data Order. To maintain 
continuity in data collected by the Board, reporting under the 
Interim Data Order will conclude on Wednesday, February 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Issues Raised in Response to the SNPR

    The following parties provided comments in this proceeding, either 
in the form of written comments or oral comments during the ex parte 
meetings that were then summarized and posted by the Board, or both:
    Alliance for Rail Competition et al.; American Chemistry Council; 
Association of American Railroads (AAR); BASF Corporation; BNSF Railway 
Company (BNSF); Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP); Chicago 
Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP); CSX Transportation, Inc. 
(CSXT); Freight Rail Customer Alliance; Highroad Consulting, Ltd. 
(HRC); Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS); Thomas F. McFarland 
and Gordon P. MacDougall; National Corn Growers Association; National 
Grain and Feed Association (NGFA); National Industrial Transportation 
League (NITL); Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR); South Dakota 
Corn Growers Association; The Fertilizer Institute (TFI); Texas Trading 
and Transportation Services, LLC, et al.; Union Pacific Railway Company 
(UP); U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of 
Transportation; and Western Coal Traffic League, et al. (WCTL). The 
Honorable John Thune, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation, submitted comments in this proceeding as well.
    Below we generally summarize the comments received on the SNPR,\4\ 
and explain the changes being adopted in this final rule. Although not 
all comments and recommendations will be adopted, all of the many 
comments parties have submitted were carefully reviewed and considered 
in deciding on the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Comments on the NPR and meeting summaries were summarized in 
the preamble to the SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board Authority

    AAR's position is that the Board should state a valid regulatory 
purpose for the rule before adding to the cumulative regulatory burden 
on the railroads. (AAR SNPR Comments 5.) AAR argues that the rules are 
not necessary for improving rail service, expressing the view that rail 
service improved in 2013-2014 ``because of efforts of railroads to 
serve their customers.'' (Id. at 6.) Finally, AAR asserts that the SNPR 
``does not articulate how the proposed rules would be useful in 
carrying out the specific statutory provisions the Board cites'' and 
argues that each statutory provision requires ``particularized findings 
related to the specific transportation at issue beyond the proposed 
data collection.'' (Id.)
    As the Board stated in the SNPR, ``the need and justification for a 
permanent reporting rule is clear.'' Slip op. at 22. Under the 
Interstate Commerce Act, the Board has broad authority to require 
reports by rail carriers under 49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145. The statute also 
makes clear that service adequacy is a key part of the Board's mandate, 
beginning with the provisions of the rail transportation policy (RTP) 
of 49 U.S.C. 10101. See SNPR, slip op. at 22. The RTP states that, in 
regulating the railroad industry, it is policy of the United States 
Government to minimize the need for regulatory control, 49 U.S.C. 
10101(2), promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system, 49 
U.S.C. 10101(3), ensure the development of a sound rail transportation 
system to meet the needs of the public, 49 U.S.C.

[[Page 87474]]

10101(3), and encourage efficient management of railroads, 49 U.S.C. 
10101(9). The Board finds that having data that will allow it to 
monitor service across the rail network advances these RTP goals. The 
data will help promote the RTP by allowing the agency, as well as 
shippers and other stakeholders, to more quickly identify and react to 
service issues than it would otherwise have the ability to do.
    As also explained in the SNPR, slip op. at 22, the Board has the 
responsibility for monitoring the adequacy of service under specific 
statutory provisions, including service emergencies under 49 U.S.C. 
11123. The Board's powers under section 11123 are extensive \5\ and can 
be initiated by the agency. The potential triggers for Board action, 
such as ``congestion of traffic'' and ``other failure of traffic 
movement'' (49 U.S.C. 11123(a)), are clearly implicated by the 
collection of service metrics, and the Board has explained that 
reporting would ``improve the Board's ability to identify and help 
resolve future regional or national service disruptions more quickly.'' 
SNPR, slip op. at 22. Service issues can also be relevant when the 
Board considers whether railroad service practices are reasonable (49 
U.S.C. 10702), whether to force a line sale in the event of inadequate 
service (49 U.S.C. 10907), and whether railroads are fulfilling their 
common carrier obligations (49 U.S.C. 11101) or providing safe and 
adequate car service (49 U.S.C. 11121). See SNPR, slip op. at 22 
(explaining that ``permanent reporting . . . would aid the Board and 
industry stakeholders in identifying whether railroads are adequately 
meeting those statutory requirements.''). Accordingly, we disagree with 
AAR's suggestion that the Board has not articulated a justification for 
the data's usefulness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ When requisite statutory criteria are met, the Board can (1) 
direct the handling, routing, and movement of the traffic of a rail 
carrier and its distribution over its own or other railroad lines; 
(2) require joint or common use of railroad facilities; (3) 
prescribe temporary through routes; (4) give directions for--(A) 
preference or priority in transportation; (B) embargoes; or (C) 
movement of traffic under permits. See 49 U.S.C. 11123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also finds no merit to the AAR's suggestion that the data 
reporting would be unhelpful in determining if some of the statutory 
provisions listed by the Board are met. The AAR argues that these 
statutory provisions require ``particularized findings'' that would 
necessitate more granular information than would be provided for by the 
reported data. However, even if more granular information would be 
required for the Board to act in a particular circumstance, the Board 
has explained that the reporting will assist it in determining whether 
to request more granular data or information. SNPR, slip op. at 22. 
Likewise, AAR's suggestion that baseline service metrics would be 
``irrelevant'' in common carrier or forced sale-cases limits--in 
advance--what service information shippers and carriers would find 
probative in such cases.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted above, AAR expresses its opinion that increased 
service quality after the 2013-2014 crisis was due to ``efforts of 
railroads to serve their customers.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 6.) 
However, the Board need not find that the interim service reporting 
caused service improvements to justify the permanent collection of 
service data, which will facilitate the Board's ability to monitor 
performance and respond to issues in the event of future service 
disruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board believes that the long-term utility of the data 
collection in this final rule outweighs the additional burden placed on 
the rail industry. It will also help promote the RTP as outlined above.

Other Recommendations/General Comments

    Railroad Interests. The railroads generally oppose metrics focused 
on particular commodities, train types, or geographic regions. AAR 
reiterates that a few ``macro-level reporting metrics would best serve 
the Board's goals of maintaining access to information . . . while 
balancing the burdens imposed on railroads.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 2.) As 
such, AAR advocates that the Board's final rule be based on macro-level 
data that is presently reported to the AAR. It asserts that such macro-
level metrics best reflect trends and relative changes in service 
performance while granular reporting is confusing, potentially 
misleading, and less useful for comparisons over time. (Id.) AAR also 
states that shipper groups have failed to explain how they actually use 
the data. (AAR SNPR Reply 2-3.) Finally, AAR warns that the Board 
``should be aware that this data inevitably will be . . . cited to the 
Board as evidence that one railroad is underperforming its peers 
regardless of whether that conclusion is correct.'' (Id. at 3.)
    NSR agrees that service performance metrics tailored to specific 
commodities may create a misleading picture of overall service and 
asserts that the burdens of such reporting outweigh the benefits. (NSR 
SNPR Comments 3.) UP and CP likewise assert that the final rule should 
only include network-specific metrics. (CP SNPR Comments 2; UP SNPR 
Comments 2-3.) UP asserts that the more detailed metrics are too narrow 
to provide more meaningful information, and can be required based on 
service issues. (UP SNPR Comments 2-3.) In addition, UP again opposes 
NGFA's request for additional grain reporting. (UP SNPR Reply 1-3.).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ UP also asked the Board to discontinue its annual request 
for a peak season letter, as it would be unnecessary if the Board 
begins collecting data pursuant to this final rule. (UP SNPR 
Comments 13.) Chairman Elliott announced in August 2016 that the 
Board was discontinuing the end-of-year letters, citing, among other 
things, the weekly collection of service performance reports that 
the Board began collecting pursuant to the Interim Data Order. Press 
Release, Surface Transportation Board, STB Chairman Daniel R. 
Elliott III Discontinues Annual Letter to Rail Industry Seeking End-
of-Year Outlook (Aug. 22, 2016), https://www.stb.gov/stb/news/news_releases.html (follow ``date of issuance within the current 
year'' or ``prior to the current year'' hyperlink, as appropriate to 
access 2016 press releases; then follow ``8/22/2016'' hyperlink).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA disagrees with the 
Board's statement in the SNPR that ``the burden of more granular 
metrics [than those proposed in the SNPR] outweigh(s) their value as a 
tool for identifying regional or national system-wide problems'' and 
argues that the Board must instead increase the granularity of the rail 
service performance data it collects. (NGFA SNPR Comments 3, 3-5.) NGFA 
asserts that the Board should ``consider the benefits of some 
additional specific data to rail customers in monitoring service, given 
the diverse and differing rail transportation service that applies to 
different types of grain-based agricultural products.'' (Id. at 3.) 
NGFA cites findings made in a 2015 National Academy of Sciences/
Transportation Research Board report and a 2008 Laurits R. Christensen 
Associates Inc. report \8\ while arguing that: (1) The data the Board 
proposes to collect are too aggregated to provide meaningful insights 
into service quality; (2) system-wide performance data is less useful 
to shippers than data based on route, corridor, or commodity, which are 
important for identifying and rectifying service issues; and (3) 
variability in service, which tended to be greater in grain and coal 
units, can be more costly and problematic than absolute service levels. 
(Id. at 4-5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Transp. Research Bd. of the Nat'l Acad, Modernizing 
Freight Rail Regulation, 48-56 (2015); Laurits R. Christensen 
Associates, A Study of Competition in the U.S. Freight Railroad 
Industry and Analysis of Proposals that Might Enhance Competition, 
ES-35 to ES-37 (2009), https://www.stb.gov/stb/docs/competitionstudy/executive%20summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Rule. As noted above, the Board's objective in the proceeding 
is to obtain weekly data that allows the agency to monitor the railroad 
industry's current performance and to

[[Page 87475]]

build a data set that will allow the Board to observe trends and make 
comparisons against past performance. The set of requests being adopted 
today advances these objectives and strikes an appropriate balance of 
augmenting the Board's ability to better monitor rail service trends 
without burdening railroads with excessive reporting requirements. The 
Board is thus declining to either adopt the railroad industry's request 
to alter the reporting to the ``macro level'' data presently reported 
to AAR or to adopt, for the most part,\9\ the shippers' requests for 
additional ``granular'' data covering discrete subsets of traffic, 
specific corridors, or local operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As explained in greater detail below, the Board will add 
some granularity to the required reporting by requiring certain 
fertilizer carload reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Week and Timing

    The SNPR proposes defining the reporting week as 12:01 a.m. 
Saturday to 11:59 p.m. Friday with reports due the following Wednesday.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads generally agree with the proposal 
in the SNPR, with one exception. AAR urges the Board to modify its 
proposed reporting week for Request No. 11 (weekly carloadings) to 
conform to the reporting week that railroads have historically used to 
report the same data to AAR. ``That data has been based on a week 
ending at 11:59 p.m. Saturday, which permits the weekly report to 
capture most of the traffic originated during the week by customers who 
complete their car loading activities by Friday at close of business.'' 
(AAR SNPR Comments 7.) AAR notes that it has identified no compelling 
reason why the weekly carloadings data must match the other service 
metrics. (Id.)
    In response to NGFA's criticisms of the Wednesday reporting day, 
AAR states that NGFA provides no support for its assertion that a 
Monday reporting day is essential. (AAR SNPR Reply 2.) UP also states 
that it needs until Wednesday afternoon to capture, validate, analyze/
process, and compile the information from different sources that goes 
into its reports. (UP SNPR Reply 3-4.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL does not oppose the 
SNPR's proposed reporting week. (NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) NGFA also 
does not oppose the proposed reporting week, but urges the Board to 
require the weekly reports be filed no later than Monday. (NGFA SNPR 
Comments 7.)
    Final Rule. Except with respect to Request No. 11 (weekly 
carloadings), the Board will adopt the reporting week and reporting day 
proposed in the SNPR as the final rule. The 12:01 a.m. Saturday to 
11:59 p.m. Friday reporting week comports with the railroad industry's 
internal reporting practices. Allowing railroads to report data on 
Wednesday gives them sufficient opportunity to collect, review, and 
assemble the data prior to submission. For purposes of Request No. 11, 
and consistent with AAR's suggestion, the Board will modify the 
reporting week proposed in the SNPR to 12:01 a.m. Sunday to 11:59 p.m. 
Saturday with a Wednesday reporting day. This is consistent with how 
the industry has historically reported and currently reports weekly 
carloadings to AAR. The Board does not foresee any issue with the fact 
that this metric would cover a different weekly period (by one day) 
than the other metrics.

Definition of Unit Train

    The SNPR proposes that, rather than having a single definition for 
unit train, each carrier be allowed to report unit train data based on 
how it assigns train symbols (or codes) in accordance with its own 
business practices.
    Railroad Interests. Railroad interests generally support the SNPR's 
definition of unit train, stating that ``it will ensure that data 
collected matches railroads' and their customers' understanding of the 
traffic.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 4; see also UP SNPR Comments 1-2; BNSF 
SNPR Comments 2.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shipper interests 
generally do not oppose the definition of unit train proposed in the 
SNPR. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7; NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) However, they ask 
that the Board draw special attention to the definitions of unit train 
on its Web site to offer clear guidance on how each railroad defines 
unit train. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7; NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) NGFA also 
requests that the Board require each carrier to provide updates if and 
when it changes its unit train definition. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7.)
    Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal for defining a 
unit train as the final rule. In their initial filings under the final 
rule, the Board will require railroads to explain their practices of 
making ``unit train'' designations in the ordinary course of business. 
This information will be accessible to the public on the Board's Web 
site with other service performance data, so that the public will 
understand how each carrier is defining ``unit train.'' Railroads will 
also be required to inform the Board if their practices change in the 
future, by electronically submitting to OPAGAC a written explanation of 
the change at the time it goes into effect. The Board's Web site will 
be updated accordingly.

Request No. 1 (Train Speed), No. 2 (Terminal Dwell Time), and No. 3 
(Cars Online)

    For Request No. 1, the SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide 
system-average train speed, measured for line-haul movements between 
terminals and calculated by dividing total train-miles by total hours 
operated, for: (a) Intermodal; (b) grain unit; (c) coal unit; (d) 
automotive unit; (e) crude oil unit; (f) ethanol unit; (g) manifest; 
(h) fertilizer unit; and (i) system. The SNPR modifies the proposal in 
the NPR by adding categories for ``fertilizer unit'' and ``system'' and 
removing the category for ``all other.''
    For Request No. 2, the SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide 
weekly average terminal dwell time for each carrier's system and its 10 
largest terminals. For Request No. 3, the SNPR proposes requiring 
carriers to provide weekly average cars online for several car types, 
other, and total. The SNPR makes no changes to Request No. 2 and 
Request No. 3 in the NPR.
    Railroad Interests. Railroad interests generally do not object to 
Request Nos. 1-3, though they again emphasize that permanent reporting 
should be limited to those metrics that provide a ``meaningful view of 
network health.'' (UP SNPR Comments 2-3; see also CP SNPR Comments 1; 
AAR SNPR Reply 8.) UP states that this would include Request Nos. 1-4. 
(UP SNPR Comments 2-3.) Other carriers identify Request Nos. 1-3, with 
the potential addition of a weekly carloadings metric, as sufficient to 
monitor overall network fluidity. (CP NPR Comments 2; AAR NPR Comments 
12.) In response to NGFA's requests for additional categories under 
Request No. 3 (Cars Online), UP counters that NGFA provides no 
justification for either its hazardous material reporting or for what 
it alleges is an ``impracticable'' request that industry-placed cars 
also be included. (UP SNPR Reply 4-5.)
    Finally, the railroads generally oppose the addition of fertilizer 
to Request No. 1 and to all other metrics that would require carriers 
to report data on fertilizer unit trains or carloads. AAR argues that 
commodity specific reporting, including fertilizer, is not useful for 
comparing service metrics for traffic that moves in different service 
and equipment. (AAR SNPR Comments 7-8.) It states that although there 
is no single definition of fertilizer, the Board's proposed definition 
is overbroad and erroneously includes commodities

[[Page 87476]]

which are not fertilizers. (Id.; see also CSXT SNPR Comments 1.) CSXT 
adds that it can accommodate some of the fertilizer data the Board 
seeks, but using the Board's proposed Standard Transportation Commodity 
Codes (STCCs) would be difficult and misleading. (CSXT SNPR Comments 
1.) NSR reports that in 2015 it moved less than 11% of its fertilizer 
traffic in unit train service and consequently believes that the data 
should not be separately reported. (NSR SNPR Comments 1.) It asserts 
that fertilizer shippers can monitor macro-level service data trends to 
gauge fertilizer service. (Id.)
    UP argues that the Board should not adopt new fertilizer metrics 
based on past service issues that no longer exist. (UP SNPR Comments 
3.) Regarding fertilizer unit train reporting, UP argues that, because 
a small amount of fertilizer moves in unit train service (one in seven 
UP fertilizer shipments), the proposed metric would not provide useful 
information to the Board or allow the Board to reach meaningful 
conclusions about service. (Id. at 3-4.) UP expresses concern that 
separate reporting on fertilizer unit trains could expose confidential, 
customer-specific volume information. (Id. at 4.) UP states that 
fertilizer accounted for only 2% of UP total carloadings in 2015. (Id.) 
UP argues that there is no reason for separate reporting because (1) 
the rail network is fluid and currently has the resources to handle 
demand, and (2) the Board should avoid requiring commodity-specific 
reporting absent evidence distinguishing a specific commodity from 
other, non-reported commodities. (Id. at 4-5.) Finally, UP argues that 
fertilizer carloading reporting would create an unnecessary burden and 
introduce inconsistencies with historical records. (Id. at 5.)
    Shipper Interests & Other Stakeholders. Shipper interests are 
generally supportive of the SNPR changes to the first three metrics. 
NITL strongly supports the addition of ``system'' and ``fertilizer'' 
components to Request No. 1. (NITL SNPR Comments 3.) WCTL continues to 
support the inclusion of coal unit trains in Request Nos. 1-2. (WCTL 
SNPR Comments 3.) NGFA continues to advocate for more granular grain 
unit reporting, however, it narrows its request from its NPR comments 
to add only vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain 
categories in Request Nos. 1-2. (NGFA SNPR Comments 5, 8.) NGFA 
supports Request No. 3, but urges the Board to add a requirement that 
``carriers subdivide the `tank car' reporting requirement to include 
subcategories for cars hauling `hazmat' and `non-hazmat,''' plus 
require reporting of cars that are industry-placed. (NGFA SNPR Comments 
8-9.)
    Finally, for Request No. 1 and all other metrics requiring carriers 
to report data on fertilizer unit trains, TFI recognizes that 
fertilizer shipments are not evenly distributed across carriers and 
agrees with UP that reporting fertilizer unit trains may raise 
confidentiality concerns among railroads with limited shipments. 
Accordingly, TFI states that it ``no longer advocates for the reporting 
of fertilizer unit trains.'' (TFI SNPR Reply 2, 6.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 1, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal with one modification as the final rule. We will exclude 
fertilizer unit trains from average train speed reporting. As noted 
above, TFI withdrew its request for unit train metrics for fertilizer 
movements. Additionally, the railroad industry explained that most 
fertilizer shipments move in manifest service and only a very small 
annual volume moves in unit trains. Thus, maintaining a fertilizer unit 
train speed metric would not advance the Board's objectives. Also for 
Request No. 1, the Board will adopt the SNPR proposal to add an overall 
``system'' component, which aligns the request with current AAR 
reporting and provides a fuller picture of service performance. For 
Request No. 2 and No. 3, the Board will adopt the SNPR proposal as the 
final rule.
    The Board will deny NGFA's request to incorporate vegetable oils 
and vegetable meals into Request Nos. 1-2. Most carloads of vegetable 
oils move in manifest service as opposed to unit train service. (AAR 
SNPR Reply 4-5.) NGFA has not demonstrated a strong need for such a 
specifically tailored metric. Moreover, NGFA fails to explain why the 
railroads' reporting of system average train speed for manifest trains 
does not capture the velocity of vegetable oil and vegetable meal 
traffic, such that a specifically tailored metric is necessary. 
Similarly, NGFA fails to demonstrate that weekly average terminal dwell 
time does not adequately reflect terminal dwell for cars of vegetable 
oils and vegetable meals.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NGFA also requests that the Board incorporate vegetable 
oils and vegetable meals into Request Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The 
Board will likewise deny NGFA's requests to add additional grain 
categories to those requests as it has generally not shown a need to 
single out these specific commodities for more granular reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request No. 4 (Dwell Time at Origin--Unit Train)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide weekly average 
dwell time at origin for loaded shipments sorted by grain unit, coal 
unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol unit, fertilizer unit, 
all other unit trains, and manifest. The SNPR modifies the proposal in 
the NPR by adding the fertilizer unit and manifest categories and 
deleting the interchange component, which would have required carriers 
to report dwell times for trains at interchanges between carriers.
    Railroad Interests. As discussed above, the railroads generally 
oppose the requirement to report data on fertilizer unit trains. They 
also oppose the addition of the manifest category to Request No. 4 
because an origin dwell metric is inconsistent with how manifest trains 
operate. (BNSF SNPR Comments 3 n.1; AAR SNPR Comments 8-9; UP SNPR 
Comments 10.) AAR comments that the data item is ambiguous, explaining 
that manifest trains ``are not `released' to a line-haul carrier at 
`origin.' Manifest trains are made up at a railroad's yard and moved 
after the air brake test is completed.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 8-9.) In 
response to NGFA's request to require carriers to provide industry spot 
and pull (ISP) reports, UP asserts that shippers already have access to 
this information for their own traffic and no public interest would be 
served by public reporting of this customer-specific information. (UP 
SNPR Reply 3.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. WCTL opposes the deletion 
of the interchange component. (WCTL SNPR Comments 3-4.) It states that 
customers depending on movements with interchanges found that 
``interchange dwell can be a telling measure of how the railroads are 
performing with their interchange partners, their available resources, 
and whether their systems are constrained.'' (Id. at 4.) WCTL argues 
that deleting the interchange component removes a potentially important 
source of data, invites carries to engage in finger pointing, and 
deprives shippers of insight into where delays actually occur. (Id.)
    NGFA urges the Board to require carriers to ``provide ISP reports 
upon one-time written request from rail customers.'' (NGFA SNPR 
Comments 9.) It argues the ISP reports are an important source of data 
because they are a truer reflection of service than the current metrics 
which only reflect velocities from terminal-to-terminal. (NGFA SNPR 
Comments 6.) NGFA asserts that ISP reports better indicate the service 
shippers and receivers are actually receiving. (Id.) NGFA also asks the 
Board to expand the metric to

[[Page 87477]]

include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain 
category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 9.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 4, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal with two modifications as the final rule. First, for the 
reasons discussed above, we will delete the fertilizer unit component. 
Second, we will remove the manifest component, which would have 
required carriers to report dwell time for manifest trains. As 
explained by the railroad interests, manifest trains are not released 
in the same manner as unit trains at shipper origins, and therefore do 
not ``dwell'' in the same sense that unit trains do.
    The Board will adopt the proposed change in the SNPR of not 
including the interchange component. We continue to believe that the 
``interchange'' component would not materially enhance the Board's 
perspective on rail service, in light of other performance data that 
will be collected under these final rules, such as dwell at origin, 
terminal dwell, trains holding, and cars that have not moved in 48 
hours or longer. Moreover, the Board is sensitive to the potential 
burden that the ``interchange'' component would create because 
railroads do not share a common understanding as to when a train is 
considered to be ``released'' or ``accepted'' at interchange or 
maintain common practices for measuring a train's idle time at 
interchange. See SNPR, slip op. at 10.
    The Board will not mandate that railroads report to shippers upon 
request their respective ISP percentages for their local service design 
plans. NGFA's basis for seeking such reporting appears to be its view 
that other metrics contained in the SNPR are too general to allow the 
Board (and shippers) to assess local service. However, NGFA desires a 
level of data granularity--tracking at the local level--that exceeds 
the Board's objectives in monitoring service performance of the Class I 
railroads. Additionally, NGFA does not address the reporting burden 
that the volume of shipper requests would impose upon the industry.
    Lastly, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline 
NGFA's request to expand this metric to include vegetable oils and 
vegetable meals. Additionally, because these commodities typically do 
not move in unit train configurations, dwell time at origin would not 
be a meaningful metric.

Request No. 5 (Trains Holding)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly average 
number of trains holding per day, sorted by train type (intermodal, 
grain unit, coal unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol unit, 
fertilizer unit, other unit, and manifest) and by cause (crew, 
locomotive power, or other). To arrive at these figures, railroads 
would be instructed to run a daily same-time snapshot and then 
calculate the weekly averages. The SNPR modifies the proposal in the 
NPR in several ways. It removes the proposed requirement that railroads 
report trains held short of destination or scheduled interchange for 
longer than six hours. It also removes the ``all other'' train type and 
the ``track maintenance'' and ``mechanical causes'' that were included 
in the NPR. The SNPR adds ``fertilizer unit'' and ``manifest train'' 
types, and the instruction to run a daily same-time snapshot and then 
calculate the weekly average.
    Railroad Interests. CSXT reiterates that it will be a highly manual 
process to comply with this metric, including the fertilizer component. 
However, it states that the SNPR proposal is a ``tremendous'' 
improvement from the NPR and supports deletion of the six-hour 
component and the more limited list of causes. (CSXT SNPR Comments 3.)
    Since it was proposed in the NPR, BNSF has urged the Board to 
discontinue this metric, arguing it is not a reliable indicator of 
railroad performance. (BNSF SNPR Comments 3-4.) BNSF previously 
expressed that it can only provide a snapshot measure, as proposed 
here, but is concerned that the snapshot method overstates its numbers. 
(BNSF Mtg. Summary 2.) BNSF asserts that issues with the metric are 
exacerbated by the proposal in the SNPR to remove the six-hour 
category. (BNSF SNPR Comments 4.) BNSF also states, in response to the 
removal of the interchange component, that its current data set does 
not distinguish between trains that are held short of destination, 
interchange, or otherwise. (Id.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers urge the Board 
to revisit the decision to eliminate two reportable causes and require 
more specific reasons for delay rather than ``other.'' (NITL SNPR 
Comments 3; WCTL SNPR Comments 5.) NITL asserts that it recognizes the 
carriers' concern that trains held as part of normal operations will be 
captured in this metric, but argues that ``in the search for the root 
causes of `abnormal' operating conditions . . . having more knowledge . 
. . is preferable.'' (NITL SNPR Comments 3; see also WCTL SNPR Comments 
5.) NGFA also opposes the elimination of causes and supports BNSF's 
suggestion to allow data that would identify trains being held on the 
network for railroad-caused reasons, but urges the Board not to 
eliminate the metric. (NGFA SNPR Reply 4-5.) NGFA asks the Board to 
expand the metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the 
existing grain category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 9.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 5, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal as the final rule with one modification. For the reasons 
discussed above, the fertilizer unit train component will be deleted.
    Both railroad and shipper commenters generally support the 
modification proposed in the SNPR of converting this metric into a 
weekly average of a daily snapshot of trains holding on each railroad's 
network, which is consistent with the way the industry monitors 
fluidity. The Board originally created the six-hour category to capture 
trains holding outside of their operating plan. However, railroads 
argued that the category was ineffective because some trains are held 
for six hours or longer as part of their operating plan. Railroads also 
argued that it was problematic from a data tracking standpoint because 
their internal metrics were not programmed to be compatible with the 
six-hour or longer filter. (BNSF NPR Comments 5-7; UP NPR Comments 15-
16.) Accordingly, we will proceed to eliminate it from the final rules. 
The Board recognizes BNSF's concern that, even by eliminating the six-
hour category, the trains holding metric will still capture trains 
being held as part of their operating plan. Nevertheless, the data will 
provide value over the course of time by allowing the agency to monitor 
trends and spot aberrations.
    With regard to categorization of trains being held by cause, the 
Board seeks to simplify reporting, as proposed in the SNPR. Although 
the ``equipment malfunction'' and ``track maintenance'' categories 
proposed in the NPR could be indicative of general service problems, 
the Board believes that the ``crew shortages'' and ``locomotive 
shortages'' categories proposed in the SNPR are more significant 
indicators of systemic, long-term service issues. Thus, the Board will 
reduce the number of assigned causes.
    Lastly, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline 
NGFA's request to expand this metric to cover vegetable oils and 
vegetable meals. Additionally, because these commodities typically do 
not move in unit train configurations, the reported data would not be 
meaningful as a measure of fluidity as to vegetable oils and vegetable 
meal.

[[Page 87478]]

Request No. 6 (Cars Held)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly average 
number of loaded and empty cars, operating in normal movement and 
billed to an origin or destination, which have not moved in 48 hours or 
more, sorted by service type (intermodal, grain, coal, crude oil, 
automotive, ethanol, fertilizer, or all other). The SNPR modifies the 
proposal in the NPR by deleting the category for cars that have not 
moved in more than 120 hours. The SNPR also changes the categorization 
of such cars held from a period of ``greater than 48 hours, but less 
than or equal to 120 hours,'' to a period of ``48 hours or more.'' 
Finally, the SNPR modifies the NPR's requirement for a daily average of 
loaded and empty cars held to a weekly average and adds a fertilizer 
component.
    Railroad Interests. BNSF reiterates that there is public confusion 
regarding the differences in hold times for cars for different 
commodities under this metric. (BNSF SNPR Comments 4.) It asserts that 
these ``differences in commodity categories are driven in large part by 
the ratio of unit train and single car service in the commodity fleet 
rather than service disruptions or other performance issues.'' (Id. at 
4-5.) In particular, BNSF explains that approximately half of its grain 
fleet is in shuttle, or unit train, service, whereas the majority of 
its crude and coal carloads move in unit train service; because unit 
trains are built for speed and efficiency, while manifest trains 
require more holding time, BNSF argues that the data between grain and 
crude oil will differ. (Id.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers are generally 
supportive of the SNPR changes to Request No. 6. (WCTL SNPR Comments 3; 
NITL SNPR Comments 3; NGFA SNPR 9-10.) NGFA requests that the Board 
include a component for cars placed in interchange that are being held. 
(NGFA SNPR Comments 10.) NGFA also asks the Board to expand the metric 
to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain 
category. (Id.) TFI supports the inclusion of a separate fertilizer 
component for this metric, which captures carload (as opposed to unit 
train) data. However, TFI proposes to narrow the definition of 
fertilizer to 14 seven-digit STCCs. (TFI SNPR Reply 4.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 6, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal as the final rule with an adjustment to the previously 
proposed definition of fertilizer. Parties agreed that the 120 hours or 
greater category proposed in the NPR was superfluous because concern 
arises when a railcar has not moved for 48 hours. See SNPR, slip op. at 
12. As with Request No. 5, the Board will instruct carriers to use a 
same-day snapshot approach to develop a weekly average of cars that hit 
the 48-hour threshold, broken out by service type (intermodal, grain, 
coal, crude oil, automotive, ethanol, fertilizer, or all other). The 
Board will also adopt the requirement for reporting of cars in 
fertilizer service, but will define fertilizer by the 14 STCCs provided 
by TFI (2871236, 2871235, 2871238, 2819454, 2812534, 2818426, 2819815, 
2818170, 2871315, 2818142, 2818146, 2871244, 2819173, and 2871451).
    Although AAR and some railroads note that fertilizer represents a 
relatively small fraction of overall rail traffic, the Board believes 
that it is necessary to help monitor the rail fertilizer supply chain 
because of its critical importance to the nation's agricultural 
production. As became apparent to the Board at the April 2014 hearing, 
disruption of the rail fertilizer supply chain arising from service 
issues threatened to impede spring planting throughout the Midwest. In 
order to focus attention on restoring the supply chain, the Board 
directed certain railroads to report on their progress moving 
fertilizer over a six-week period. See generally U.S. Rail Serv. 
Issues, EP 724 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Apr. 15, 2014). Reporting of 
fertilizer as a stand-alone category of cars holding for 48 hours or 
longer will allow the Board to monitor the fluidity of this commodity, 
which is a key element in agricultural production, and facilitate early 
Board intervention, if appropriate. Lastly, for the reasons explained 
above, the Board will decline NGFA's request to expand this metric to 
include vegetable oils and vegetable meals. NGFA has not explained the 
heightened importance that would warrant separate reporting of these 
commodities, as has been shown for fertilizer.

Request No. 7 (Grain Cars Loaded and Billed)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly total 
number of grain cars loaded and billed, reported by state, and 
aggregated for the following 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). It 
also proposes requiring carriers to report on 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. The SNPR makes no changes to Request No. 7 in the NPR.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads did not provide specific 
additional comment on this metric in response to the proposed metric in 
the SNPR.
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA generally supports 
the SNPR; however, it asks the Board to expand the metric to include 
vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain category. 
(NGFA SNPR Comments 10; see also NITL SNPR Comments 3.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 7, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal, which was unchanged from the NPR, as the final rule. For the 
reasons discussed above, the Board will decline NGFA's request to 
expand this metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals.

Request No. 8 (Grain Car Orders)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide, for the same STCCs 
in Request No. 7, a report by state for the following for cars in 
manifest service: (a) The running total number of orders placed; (b) 
the running total of orders filled; and (c) for orders which have not 
been filled, the number of orders that are 1-10 days past due and 11+ 
days past due. The SNPR significantly modifies the NPR requirements, 
which were to report: (a) The total number of overdue car orders; (b) 
the average number of days late for all overdue grain car orders; (c) 
the total number of new orders received during the past week; (d) total 
number of orders filled during the past week; and (e) the number of 
orders cancelled during the past week.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads generally commented that they 
could report the requested data, subject to various individual 
limitations in their data systems. NSR explains that it only operates a 
small portion of its grain transportation on the basis of grain car 
orders so it would have limited and unrepresentative data in its 
response. (NSR SNPR Comments 2.) CSXT states that it could generate the 
required data unless the metric includes unit train placements as car 
orders. (CSXT SNPR Comments 3.) CSXT also emphasizes that commercial 
practices of railroads differ substantially between carriers and 
cautions against comparing data between railroads. (Id.) Finally, CSXT 
notes that it does not roll-over car orders from week-to-week and thus 
will not show any orders in the 11+ days category. (Id.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA suggests that the 
Board consider requiring each reporting carrier to report the 
definition of its car-ordering system for shuttles and

[[Page 87479]]

manifest traffic. (NGFA SNPR Comments 11.) It also recommends that the 
Board require each ``carrier to report whether it placed or pulled cars 
that were ordered or cancelled as a result of a railroad spotting more 
cars than the facility requested.'' (Id.) NGFA also requests that the 
Board expand the metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals 
to the grain category. (Id.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 8, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal as the final rule. This request allows the Board to monitor 
car order fulfillment for shippers of agricultural products whose 
traffic moves in manifest (as opposed to unit train) service. Although 
the Board acknowledges the limitations that CSXT and NSR have noted, 
the Board believes that, overall, this data will allow the effective 
monitoring of grain traffic in manifest service over time. With respect 
to NGFA's suggestion to refine this request by requiring carriers to 
report certain definitions, such a proposal seems more responsive to 
the NPR's proposal than the SNPR's proposal, and in any event is not in 
line with the Board's intent to simplify this request. See SNPR, slip 
op. at 14 (``the Board proposes a simpler approach by asking that 
railroads report running totals of grain car orders placed versus grain 
car orders filled by State for cars moving in manifest service''). With 
respect to NGFA's request for additional data on cars ordered or 
cancelled, such a proposal does not enhance the Board's view of grain 
car order fulfilment. Moreover, it is unclear that railroads track the 
data that NGFA seeks.
    Also, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline 
NGFA's request to expand this metric to include vegetable oils and 
vegetable meals.

Request No. 9 (Coal Loadings)

    The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly average 
coal unit train loadings or carloadings versus planned loadings by coal 
production region. The SNPR modifies the proposal in the NPR by 
generally returning to the form of the corresponding request (Request 
No. 10) from the Interim Data Order, and adding the requirement to 
compare actual loadings against railroad service plans.
    Railroad Interests. UP asserts that it develops neither its own 
loading expectations, nor independent daily or weekly planned coal 
loadings. (UP SNPR Reply 11.) UP states that, to the extent that it has 
a coal loading plan, the plan is based on confidential customer 
information. (Id. at 10.) As such, UP raises concerns that disclosing 
any planned weekly loadings could reveal confidential customer 
information where UP has few coal customers. UP would require a waiver 
from the Board so that it could aggregate data to prevent revealing 
that information. (Id.) That concern aside, UP argues that comparing 
planned to actual weekly carloadings provides limited insight into 
railroad performance because actual carloadings are too dependent upon 
factors outside the railroad's control. (Id.) AAR also questions the 
usefulness of including a comparison to plan, arguing that it may 
present unreliable data because plans fluctuate based on customer 
preference, commercial factors, equipment, and other issues. (AAR SNPR 
Comments 9.) AAR stresses that coal traffic primarily moves subject to 
contracts beyond the Board's jurisdiction. (Id.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. WCTL and others support 
the addition of the comparison-to-plan component to Request No. 9. 
(WCTL SNPR Comments 2-3; NITL SNPR Comments 3.) WCTL states that 
including the comparison-to-plan component is superior to the metric 
proposed in the NPR and ``provides direct and frequent information 
regarding whether the railroads are meeting the service needs of their 
customers and even the carriers' own loading plans [and] whether such 
divergences are continuing or increasing.'' (WCTL SNPR Comments 2-3.) 
WCTL disagrees with concerns raised by UP that this metric could 
divulge confidential shipper information, asserting that no specific 
information would need to be divulged and no shipper has complained 
under the Interim Data Order. (WCTL SNPR Reply 3.) WCTL also argues 
that ``weekly plan reporting is useful precisely because it reflects 
the requirements of one of the highest volume commodities on all of the 
railroads and whether the railroads are able to meet that demand'' and 
is potentially a valuable data point because the fluidity of coal 
routes can impact other shippers. (Id. at 3-4.) WCTL also asserts that, 
despite UP's claim that it has no coal loading plans, it ``requires all 
coal customers to use the [National Coal Transportation Association] 
coal forecasting tool, which generally results in a railroad-approved 
monthly loading plan.'' (Id. at 4.) Finally, WCTL suggests that, where 
railroads have a single shipper, they be permitted to withhold the data 
and make a notation that confidential information might be revealed. 
(Id.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 9, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal as the final rule. The Board believes that there is value in 
having railroads report their performance versus their plan on a weekly 
basis for coal loadings. This data will not only allow the agency to 
track actual loadings, but also to see whether railroads are meeting 
their own targets. The Board understands the point made by UP that a 
loading plan is not necessarily static, but is simply a target based on 
a variety of inputs, which can and does change as surrounding 
circumstances change. Even so, there is value in seeing whether 
railroads are meeting, exceeding, or falling short of plans, as it 
provides context to the reporting of weekly average loadings. To the 
extent that reporting information about planned loadings under this 
metric would implicate confidential information, railroads may include 
a notation in their weekly filing that they are not providing the plan 
data along with a brief explanation for the data's absence. Finally, 
AAR's argument that coal traffic primarily moves subject to contracts 
beyond the Board's jurisdiction does not take into account our 
statutory responsibility to advance the goals of the RTP, which (as 
discussed above) includes monitoring service in order to ensure the 
fluidity of the national rail network. 49 U.S.C. 10101(3), (4). The 
Board is not asserting jurisdiction regarding the rights and 
obligations of shippers and carriers associated with coal moving under 
contracts; rather, the Board is taking action to gain a better 
understanding of and insight into the general flow of traffic on the 
system.

Request No. 10 (Grain Unit Train Performance)

    The SNPR adds this metric not included in the NPR seeking the 
average grain shuttle (or dedicated grain train) trips per month. The 
SNPR explains that because some Class I railroads operations do not 
support this reporting, the Board anticipates issuing a waiver decision 
with the final rules that would permit other Class I railroads to 
satisfy their obligations under Request No. 10 by reporting average 
grain unit train trips per month for their total system, including this 
data in their first report of each month, covering the previous 
calendar month. Such reports would not include planned trips per month 
or data by region. Under the SNPR, for purposes of reporting under this 
item, other Class I railroads would report for all grain unit train 
movements, regardless of whether or not they maintain a grain shuttle 
or dedicated train program.
    Railroad Interests. Several railroads state that they do not 
operate grain shuttles or grain trains that cycle so they

[[Page 87480]]

cannot provide data on the average trips per month for those services. 
(UP SNPR Comments 12; CSXT SNPR Comments 4; NSR SNPR Comments 2.) NSR 
explains that it would not have any average data to report because it 
does not cycle grain trains, but states that it could report a gross 
total of the number of grain unit train trips per month. (NSR SNPR 
Comments 2.) CSXT states that because it does not manage grain 
transportation regionally, it will only be able to report average trips 
per month system-wide. (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.) UP notes that it does 
not control the origins and destinations of its shuttle trains and that 
origins and destinations routinely shift, making it difficult to report 
planned trips per month. (UP SNPR Comments 12.) AAR also states that 
some railroads cannot report the requested data, and argues that the 
Board should not adopt a rule that requires some carriers to 
immediately seek waivers. (AAR SNPR Comments 9.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers generally 
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 3; NGFA SNPR 
Comments 11). NGFA expresses concern that monthly reporting of this 
metric is insufficient and asks that the Board require weekly reporting 
instead. (NGFA SNPR Comments 12.) NGFA also urges the Board not to 
grant waivers from this requirement because it knows of no Class I 
carrier that would not be able to track shuttle or dedicated grain 
trips by region or corridor. (Id.) However, NGFA states that if the 
Board does allow for waivers, that process should be transparent. (Id.) 
In its reply, NGFA reiterates its position that shuttle trains and 
dedicated grain trips should be reported by corridor and region. (NGFA 
SNPR Reply 3.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 10, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal as the final rule modified to apply only to those carriers 
operating grain unit trains in shuttle service. The Board will 
eliminate the requirement for carriers with dedicated grain trains to 
report trips per month because the disparate data carriers could 
provide on that type of service would not provide the Board insight 
into service beyond the velocity data collected elsewhere in this final 
rule.\11\ In the first report of each month, railroads operating grain 
shuttles will be required to report their average train trips per month 
for their system and key destination regions versus planned trips per 
month for their system and key regions for the previous month. 
Underlying this request is the Board's need for information about how 
railroads are performing with respect to the agricultural sector. The 
service problems that emerged during the winter of 2013-2014 resulted 
in significant backlogs of unfilled grain car orders and increased 
train cycle times, indicating that railroads were experiencing severe 
congestion and failing to meet shipper demand. U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--
Grain, EP 724 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 1 (STB served June 20, 2014). 
Thus, in the Interim Data Order the Board requested grain car order 
fulfillment data, and data on train round trips versus the railroad's 
service plan. This data proved very useful in monitoring the progress 
of BNSF and CP as they improved operations on an actual basis and 
against their service plan. The ``turns versus plan'' data will allow 
the Board to assess how railroads operating grain shuttles are meeting 
their own expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Accordingly, the waiver decision discussed in the SNPR 
would no longer be necessary. The waiver would have applied to those 
carriers with operations that would not permit the reporting 
envisioned there. See SNPR, slip op. at 15-16. However, the 
modification proposed here would obviate the need for a waiver 
decision by including only those carriers operating grain shuttles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request No. 11 (Originated Carloads by Commodity Group)

    The SNPR proposes the creation of a second metric not included in 
the NPR. Under this metric, railroads would be required to provide 
weekly originated carloads by 23 commodity categories.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads generally support the addition of 
this metric. (See UP SNPR Comments 12; see also CP NPR Comments 2.) UP 
states that the Board can improve the metric by adding a requirement 
that carriers report ``weekly carloads originated and carloads received 
in interchange [, which] . . . would be consistent with weekly 
carloadings data reported by the AAR.'' (Id. at 12-13.)
    However, as discussed above, the railroads oppose the inclusion of 
fertilizer in this metric. They assert that creating a line-item for 
fertilizer will require substantial system changes (AAR SNPR Comments 
8; BNSF SNPR Comments 5), and point out that fertilizer is not one of 
the commodity groups currently reported to the AAR on a weekly basis. 
(AAR SNPR Comments 8; BNSF SNPR Comments 5-6.) UP states that 
fertilizer accounted for only 2% of its carloadings in 2015. (UP SNPR 
Comments 4.) CSXT argues that including fertilizer here would 
``compromise the usefulness of a long-standing economic indicator that 
has been followed . . . for decades.'' (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers generally 
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 3-4; NGFA SNPR 
Comments 12-13.) NITL states that it shows some understanding of 
shippers' requests for additional granularity in commodity groups. 
(NITL SNPR Comments 4.) NGFA again asks the Board to expand the metric 
to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain 
category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 13.) TFI again states that the definition 
of fertilizer could be narrowed to the same 14 seven-digit STCCs that 
it proposed for Request No. 6. (TFI SNPR Reply 4.)
    Final Rule. For Request No. 11, the Board will adopt the SNPR 
proposal with two modifications as the final rule. First, per UP's 
suggestion, the Board will expand the metric to include separate 
reporting of weekly cars received in interchange, which the railroads 
are already reporting to the AAR. Second, the Board will require 
railroads to report, as a separate line item, weekly originated 
carloads and cars received in interchange for fertilizer, as defined by 
the 14 seven-digit STCCs proposed by TFI and defined above.
    Through this metric, the Board seeks to gain specific data for 
carloadings and interchange traffic that will allow it to better 
monitor this commodity group. However, the Board understands the 
railroads' concern that including fertilizer could disrupt the 
continuity of reporting cars originated and received in interchange, as 
presently reported to AAR. Accordingly, the Board will create two 
subcategories for this metric. In the first subcategory, the Board will 
require reporting according to the 22 existing traffic categories 
currently reported to AAR. The second subcategory will include only 
fertilizer.
    By requiring fertilizer reporting in this manner, the Board is not 
asking railroads to modify or extract traffic from the existing 22 
categories, which should be reported in their current form; rather, the 
agency is adding a new, stand-alone category covering the STCCs 
identified above.

Request No. 12 (Car Order Fulfillment Rate by Car Type)

    The SNPR proposes the creation of a third new metric not included 
in the NPR. Under this metric, railroads would be required to provide 
car order fulfillment percentage by 10 car types.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads strongly oppose the addition of 
this metric. AAR states that the metric is ambiguous and unworkable. 
(AAR SNPR Comments 10.) It argues that ``Class I railroad practices 
regarding car supply differ significantly,'' (id.),

[[Page 87481]]

explaining that ``cars `due to be placed' and cars placed will not 
match up week to week.'' The AAR also claims that, because cars that 
are constructively placed are eventually actually placed, the metric 
creates a potential double count. (Id.) AAR also states certain rail 
cars are supplied by pool arrangements that would distort individual 
railroad reporting. (Id.) UP states that the car order fulfillment 
percentage concept ``applies only in situations where a customer orders 
and requests an empty car to be placed at a customer facility for 
loading.'' (UP SNPR Comments 5.) UP alleges that there are numerous 
situations where customers do not place car orders, including 
intermodal cars, autoracks, covered hoppers, private cars, and pooled 
cars. (Id. at 5-8.) CSXT urges the Board not to adopt the proposed 
metric, stating that ``in a considerable number of car supply 
scenarios, it is wholly unworkable.'' (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.) BNSF and 
NSR also urge the Board not to adopt the metric, identifying a number 
of issues with the proposed metric. (BNSF SNPR Comments 6-7; NSR SNPR 
Comments 2-3.) BNSF questions the value of the data because the metric 
would cover several car types that customers do not order, and because 
there are significant differences between commodities and customers of 
similar commodities. (BNSF SNPR Comments 6-7.) NSR states that because 
it does not have a tariff governing car orders, the reporting will 
result in ``significant double counting while reporting only actual 
placement will result in incomplete data.'' (NSR SNPR Comments 3.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL and NGFA generally 
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 4; NGFA SNPR 
Comments 13.) NITL stresses that it would provide additional visibility 
into industry operations that would be beneficial to a large number of 
shippers. (NITL SNPR Comments 4.) HRC urges the Board to take into 
consideration the fact that some railroads expire car orders at the end 
of each week, which will lead to an understatement of backlog orders. 
(HRC SNPR Comments 2.)
    Final Rule. The Board will not adopt the proposed Request No. 12 
from the SNPR in the final rules. As noted above, the railroad 
interests pointed out several practical and definitional challenges 
posed by this request, which make it incompatible in various ways with 
their operations and internal data tracking. Although shippers 
expressed support for this additional data, the Board believes that its 
potential utility would be significantly diminished due to the problems 
identified by the railroad industry. In a revised form, it would not 
apply to a significant amount of rail traffic. As such, the limited 
data would not materially enhance the Board's perspective on service 
performance.

Chicago

    The SNPR proposes requiring that the Class I railroads operating at 
the Chicago gateway 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; and (2) 
average daily number of trains held for delivery to Chicago sorted by 
receiving carrier. Moreover, the request would require Class I railroad 
members of the CTCO to provide certain information regarding the CTCO 
Alert Level status and protocols.
    Railroad Interests. CP reiterates its suggestion that the Board 
require certain data from the Belt Railway of Chicago (BRC) and Indiana 
Harbor Belt (IHB), which it states are the heart of the Chicago 
terminal. (CP SNPR Comments 3.) CP suggests a number of metrics that 
the two carriers could report on a weekly basis: Number of cars arrived 
per day, number of cars humped or processed per day, number of cars re-
humped or re-processed per day, number of cars pulled per day, number 
of trains departed each day by railroad, average terminal dwell, 
average departure yard dwell, and percentage of trains departed on-time 
each day by railroad. CP believes much of the data is already kept by 
the switching carriers. (Id. at 3 n.3.) CP asserts that, in contrast to 
the other commodity and geographic specific data the Board proposes to 
require, information from BRC and IHB ``is likely to provide early 
warnings of rail service issues and more likely to be useful in 
averting a significant service disruption.'' (Id. at 3.)
    AAR reports that the railroads have agreed to provide CMAP and 
other Illinois entities with a weekly report related to the Chicago 
terminal. (AAR SNPR Comments 10.) AAR states that ``the railroads have 
begun to provide the Chicago entities a report that include[s] cars en 
route to Chicago and cars processed, each broken out by cars terminated 
in Chicago and those transitioning through . . . . [and] a 7-day 
average freight transit time through Chicago.'' (Id.) AAR states that 
it would not object to making the report part of the weekly CTCO report 
to the Board. (Id.) Additionally, in its reply, AAR urges the Board to 
reject CMAP's request for additional data. (AAR SNPR Reply 6-7.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL states that 
additional information from BRC and IHB would be helpful to many 
stakeholders and recommends that the Board contact the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics for guidance on designing not overly 
burdensome operating statistics for these two carriers. (NITL SNPR 
Comments 4.) NITL also states that ``a cooperative joint effort between 
the Class I carriers that `feed' the Chicago region and the two belt 
lines to define a set of best measures would likely yield good 
results.'' (Id.) NGFA reiterates its recommendation that the Board 
require three Chicago-specific metrics touching on idled cars in 
Chicago-area yards. (Id.) In its reply, NGFA urges the Board to 
evaluate whether AAR's proposed metrics would improve the Board's 
understanding of conditions in Chicago. (NGFA SNPR Reply 5.)
    As noted above, CMAP also reports that it has reached an agreement 
with AAR to receive weekly information on ``yard inventories, terminal 
dwell times for railcar yards, the number of railcars en route and 
processed, and the overall crosstown transit times'' for the Chicago 
terminal, and that it agrees with AAR's suggestion to share this report 
with the Board. (CMAP SNPR Comments 1.) CMAP recommends that the Board 
also require additional performance metrics focusing on intermodal 
trains. (Id.) CMAP also reiterates its suggestion that the Board expand 
the number of yards included in its terminal dwell metric, and add 
metrics covering crosstown travel times; speed, volume, and train 
length for all key rail corridors in the Chicago terminal; and delay 
and intermodal lifts. (Id. at 2.)
    Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal for Chicago 
gateway reporting as the final rule. The Board will also accept the 
AAR's voluntary offer to include the data it is reporting to CMAP in 
CTCO's report to the Board.
    While the Board appreciates CP's recommendations for extending 
certain reporting requirements to IHB and BRC, the Board believes that 
the data reporting currently provided by the CTCO, through its Class I 
members, already provides focused visibility and heightened attention 
into this key gateway. The final rule, as augmented by the data that 
AAR has offered to submit voluntarily, will continue to maintain a 
robust view of operating conditions in the Chicago gateway. In the 
Chicago metrics, the Board will receive average daily car volumes at 
eleven key yards in the Chicago

[[Page 87482]]

gateway, including yards operated by BRC and IHB, and data showing 
average daily number of trains held for delivery at Chicago, sorted by 
carrier. Also, under Request No. 2, the Board will receive weekly 
average terminal dwell time for several Chicago gateway yards. This 
data will allow the Board to sufficiently monitor operating conditions 
and spot congestion or fluidity issues in the Chicago gateway. 
Therefore, the Board will not require the reporting of additional 
granularity at this time.

Infrastructure Reporting

    The SNPR proposes requiring that each Class I railroad, annually on 
March 1 with an update on September 1, report a description of 
significant rail infrastructure projects (defined as anticipated 
expenditures of $75 million or more over the life of the project) that 
will commence during the current calendar year. The narrative report 
would require a brief description of each project, its purpose, 
location (state/counties), and projected date of completion. The SNPR 
modifies the NPR's proposal by changing the reporting period from a 
quarterly report to annual with one annual update, and by increasing 
the lower limit for projects required to be reported on from $25 
million to $75 million.
    Railroad Interests. The railroads are generally supportive of the 
changes to this metric in the SNPR. (UP SNPR Comments 2; AAR SNPR 
Comments.) In its reply, AAR urges the Board to reject some shippers' 
push for more extensive reporting, stating that the SNPR ``strikes a 
balance of keeping the Board apprised on the progress of significant 
infrastructure improvements without unduly burdening railroads with its 
reporting requirements.'' (AAR SNPR Reply 5.) AAR stresses that because 
none of the infrastructure reports can be automated, the requirement 
will draw on the time and effort of personnel to write the narrative. 
(Id.)
    Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Although some shippers 
support the modified infrastructure reporting requirements (NITL SNPR 
Comments 4), others urge the Board to adopt the NPR proposal (NGFA SNPR 
Comments 14; WCTL SNPR Comments 5). NGFA states that it sees one of the 
fundamental objectives of this proceeding as being the creation of ``a 
one-stop-shop for more standardized information affecting rail 
service,'' which should include information on the impacts of 
infrastructure investment that would have been required under the NPR. 
(NGFA SNPR Comments 14.) NGFA asserts that access to this type of 
information can vary widely between carriers. (Id.) NGFA stresses that 
having timely access to information on potential disruption to service 
is extremely important to shippers and, thus, asks the Board to require 
carriers to report the predicted time frames when freight traffic may 
be interrupted as a result of infrastructure projects. (Id.) WCTL 
states that infrastructure projects with a projected cost of $25-$75 
million, which would not be reported under the SNPR proposal, can 
impact quality of service and together have an enormous impact on 
whether a railroad achieves and maintains fluidity. (WTCL SNPR Comments 
6.) It also argues that curtailed reporting could undermine the Board's 
ability to carry out its responsibility to monitor the adequacy of 
service by rail carriers and their compliance with the common carrier 
obligation. (Id.)
    Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal as the final 
rule. The Board believes that the request for an initial narrative 
response (due March 1) and a six-month update (due September 1) strikes 
an appropriate balance between the Board's need for current information 
about rail infrastructure projects and the burden of reporting on the 
railroads. Rather than specifying certain required elements, as in the 
initial proposal, the Board will allow railroads to exercise discretion 
and flexibility in preparing their narrative responses.

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. sections 601-604. In 
its final rule, the agency must either include an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule 
would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' section 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 final rules adopted here are limited to Class I railroads and, 
thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis 
for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a 
``small business'' as a rail carrier classified as a Class III rail 
carrier under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) 
(with Board Member Begeman dissenting). Class III carriers have 
annual carrier operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 
dollars, or $36,633,120 or less when adjusted for inflation using 
2015 data. Class II carriers have annual carrier operating revenues 
of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million in 1991 
dollars, or $457,913,998 and $36,633,120 respectively, when adjusted 
for inflation using 2015 data. The Board calculates the revenue 
deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue 
thresholds on its Web site. 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In a supplemental Federal Register notice, published at 81 FR 
27,069 on May 5, 2016 (correction published at 81 FR 32268 on May 23, 
2016), the Board sought comments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 and Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), regarding: (1) Whether the 
collection of information in the proposed rule 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. Any comments relating to these issues are 
addressed in the decision above.
    The proposed collection was submitted to OMB for review as required 
under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11. OMB withheld 
approval pending submission of the final rule. The Board has submitted 
the collection contained in this final rule to OMB for approval. Once 
approval is received, the Board will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register stating the control number and the expiration date for this 
collection. Under the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.11, an agency may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,

[[Page 87483]]

a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
    It is ordered:
    1. The final rule set forth below is adopted and will be effective 
on January 29, 2017. The initial reporting date will be February 8, 
2017. Notice of the rule adopted here will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.

Summary of Final Rule

    Having considered all written and oral comments on the SNPR, the 
following changes are reflected in the final rule for the new 
regulations to be codified at 49 CFR 1250.1-1250.2 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 reports 
on railroad performance. The regulations are below. The table below 
provides a brief description of the differences between the SNPR and 
this final rule, which were explained in detail above.

  Table 1--Summary of Changes in the Data Requests Between the SNPR and
                             the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  SNPR                              Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday through Friday reporting week   Modify the reporting week for
 with reports to be filed the following   Request No. 11 to Sunday
 Wednesday.                               through Saturday.
Allow carriers to report unit train      Add the requirement to submit
 data based on their assignment of        the definition of a unit train
 train codes in the ordinary course of    to the Board for publication
 business.                                on its Web site and update
                                          that definition should it
                                          change.
(1) System-average train speed for       Delete the fertilizer unit
 intermodal, grain unit, coal unit,       component.
 automotive unit, crude oil unit,
 ethanol unit, manifest, fertilizer
 unit, and, system.
(2) Weekly average terminal dwell time   No changes.
 for each carrier's system and its 10
 largest terminals.
(3) Weekly average cars online for       No changes.
 seven car types, other, and total.
(4) Weekly average dwell time at origin  Delete the fertilizer unit and
 for loaded unit train shipments sorted   manifest components.
 by grain, coal, automotive, crude oil,
 ethanol, fertilizer unit, all other
 unit trains, and manifest.
(5) Weekly total number of loaded and    Delete the fertilizer unit
 empty trains held short of destination   component.
 or scheduled interchange by train type
 (intermodal, grain unit, coal unit,
 automotive unit, crude oil unit,
 ethanol unit, fertilizer unit, other
 unit, and manifest) and by cause
 (crew, locomotive power, or other).
 Instruct railroads to run a same-time
 snapshot of trains holding each day
 and then calculate the average for the
 reporting week.
(6) Weekly average number of loaded and  Modify the definition of
 empty cars operating in normal           fertilizer.
 movement, which have not moved in >=
 48 hours, sorted by service type and
 measured by a daily same-time snapshot.
(7) Weekly total number of grain cars    No changes.
 loaded and billed, by state, for
 certain STCCs. Also include total cars
 loaded and billed in shuttle service
 versus all other ordering systems.
(8) For the STCCs delineated in Request  No changes.
 No. 7, running totals of grain car
 orders in manifest service submitted
 versus grain car orders filled, and
 for unfilled orders, the number of car
 orders that are 1-10 days past due and
 11+ days past due.
(9) Weekly total coal unit train         No changes.
 loadings or carloadings versus planned
 loadings by coal production region.
(10) Grain shuttle (or dedicated grain   Modify to apply only to grain
 train) trips per month.                  shuttles, not other grain
                                          trains.
(11) Weekly originated carloads by 23    Add cars received in
 commodity categories.                    interchange.
                                         Delete fertilizer from the main
                                          reporting category, but add a
                                          second category requiring
                                          carriers to report fertilizer
                                          originated carloads and cars
                                          received in interchange by the
                                          STCCs defined in Request No.
                                          6.
(12) Car order fulfillment percentage    Delete this proposed request.
 for the reporting week by 10 car types.
Chicago. Class Is operating in Chicago   No changes.
 must jointly report each week: Average
 daily car volume in certain yards, and
 average daily number of cars held for
 delivery to Chicago sorted by
 receiving carrier. Class I railroad
 members of the CTCO must provide
 certain information regarding the CTCO
 Alert Level status and protocols.
Infrastructure. An annual report of      No changes.
 significant rail infrastructure
 projects that will be commenced during
 that calendar year, and a six-month
 update on those projects. The report
 is to be in a narrative form briefly
 describing each project, its purpose,
 location, and projected date of
 completion. The Board proposes to
 define a significant project as one
 with a budget of $75 million or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 87484]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Decided: November 29, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and 
Commissioner Begeman.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface 
Transportation Board amends title 49, chapter X, subchapter C, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1250 to read as follows:

PART 1250--RAILROAD PERFORMANCE DATA REPORTING

Sec.
1250.1 General.
1250.2 Railroad performance data elements.
1250.3 Chicago terminal reporting.
1250.4 Rail infrastructure projects reporting.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145.


Sec.  1250.1   General.

    (a) The reporting period covers:
    (1) For Sec.  1250.2(a)(1)-(9), 12:01 a.m. Saturday-11:59 p.m. 
Friday;
    (2) For Sec.  1250.2(a)(10), the previous calendar month;
    (3) For Sec.  1250.2(a)(11), 12:01 a.m. Sunday-11:59 p.m. Saturday;
    (4) For Sec.  1250.3(a)(1)-(2), 12:01 a.m. Saturday-11:59 p.m. 
Friday.
    (b) The data required under Sec.  1250.2 and Sec.  1250.3(a) must 
be reported to the Board via the method and in the form prescribed by 
the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and 
Compliance (OPAGAC) by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday of each week. 
In the event that a particular Wednesday 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.
    (c) Each reporting railroad shall provide an explanation of its 
methodology for deriving the data with its initial filing and an update 
if and when that methodology changes. This explanation should include 
the unit train definition that the railroad will use in its data 
reporting, which shall reflect its assignment of train codes in 
accordance with its normal business practices. If and when a railroad 
changes its definition of unit train it shall notify the Board of the 
change at the time it goes into effect in the form prescribed by 
OPAGAC.
    (d) Unless otherwise provided, the performance data, Chicago data 
and alert levels, narrative infrastructure reporting, and any 
methodologies or explanations of data collection reported to the Board 
under this part will be publicly available and posted on the Board's 
Web site.


Sec.  1250.2   Railroad performance data elements.

    (a) Each Class I railroad must report the performance data elements 
in paragraphs (a)(1)-(9) and (11) of this section on a weekly basis, 
and the data elements in paragraph (a)(10) on a monthly basis, for the 
reporting period, as defined in Sec.  1250.1(a). However, with regard 
to data elements in paragraph (a)(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 for the overall system and for 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.
    (vi) Ethanol unit.
    (vii) Manifest.
    (viii) System.
    (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 shall 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 for the following train 
types: Grain unit, coal unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol 
unit, 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 until actual movement by the receiving carrier.)
    (5) The weekly average number of trains holding per day sorted by 
train type (intermodal, grain unit, coal unit, automotive unit, crude 
oil unit, ethanol unit, other unit, and manifest) and by cause (crew, 
locomotive power, or other). (Railroads are instructed to run a same-
time snapshot of trains holding each day, and then to calculate the 
average for the reporting period.)
    (6) The weekly average of loaded and empty cars, operating in 
normal movement and billed to an origin or destination, which have not 
moved in 48 hours or more sorted by service type (intermodal, grain, 
coal, crude oil, automotive, ethanol, fertilizer (the following 
Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCCs): 2871236, 2871235, 
2871238, 2819454, 2812534, 2818426, 2819815, 2818170, 2871315, 2818142, 
2818146, 2871244, 2819173, and 2871451), and all other). In order to 
derive the averages for the reporting period, carriers should run a 
same-time snapshot each day of the reporting period, capturing cars 
that have not moved in 48 hours or more. 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 period. 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 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), if any, versus total cars loaded and billed 
in all other ordering systems, including private cars.
    (8) For the aggregated STCCs listed in Sec.  1250.2(a)(7), for 
railroad-owned or leased cars that will move in manifest

[[Page 87485]]

service, each railroad shall report by state the following:
    (i) Running total of orders placed;
    (ii) The running total of orders filled;
    (iii) For orders which have not been filled, the number of orders 
that are 1-10 days past due and 11+ days past due, as measured from 
when the car was due for placement under the railroad's governing 
tariff.
    (9) Weekly average coal unit train loadings or carloadings versus 
planned loadings for the reporting week by coal production region. 
Railroads have the option to report unit train loadings or carloadings, 
but should be consistent week over week.
    (10) For Class I carriers operating a grain shuttle program, the 
average grain shuttle turns per month, for the total system and by 
region, versus planned turns per month, for the total system and by 
region. This data shall be included in the first weekly report of each 
month, covering the previous calendar month.
    (11) Weekly carloads originated and carloads received in 
interchange by 23 commodity categories, separated into two subgroups:
    (i) Twenty-two historical commodity categories.
    (A) Chemicals.
    (B) Coal.
    (C) Coke.
    (D) Crushed Stone, Sand and Gravel.
    (E) Farm Products except Grain.
    (F) Food and Kindred Products.
    (G) Grain Mill Products.
    (H) Grain.
    (I) Iron and Steel Scrap.
    (J) Lumber and Wood Products.
    (K) Metallic Ores.
    (L) Metals.
    (M) Motor Vehicles and Equipment.
    (N) Non Metallic Minerals.
    (O) Petroleum Products.
    (P) Primary Forest Products.
    (Q) Pulp, Paper and Allied Products.
    (R) Stone, Clay and Glass Products.
    (S) Waste and Scrap Materials.
    (T) All Other.
    (U) Containers.
    (V) Trailers.
    (ii) Fertilizer commodity category.
    (A) Fertilizer (for STCCs defined in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section).
    (B) [Reserved]
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  1250.3   Chicago terminal reporting.

    (a) Each Class I railroad operating at the Chicago gateway must 
jointly report the following performance data on a weekly basis for the 
reporting period, as defined in Sec.  1250.1(a). The reports required 
under this section may be submitted by the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR).
    (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.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) If Chicago terminal yards not identified in Sec.  1250.2(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 Sec.  
1250.2(b)(1) shall also be reported for those yards.
    (b) 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.
    (c) Reports under paragraph (b) of this section shall be reported 
to the Director of the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental 
Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) via the method and in the form 
prescribed by OPAGAC.


Sec.  1250.4   Rail infrastructure projects reporting.

    (a) Class I railroads shall submit annually a narrative report of 
significant rail infrastructure projects that will be commenced during 
the current calendar year, and a six-month update on those projects. 
The reports should briefly describe each project, its purpose, location 
(state/counties), and projected date of completion.
    (b) A ``significant rail infrastructure project'' is defined as a 
project with anticipated expenditures of $75 million or more over the 
life of the project.
    (c) The narrative report should be submitted no later than March 1 
of each calendar year and the update no later than September 1 of each 
calendar year via email to the Board's Office of Public Assistance, 
Governmental Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) via the method and in the 
form prescribed by OPAGAC. In the event that March 1 or September 1 is 
a Federal holiday, weekend, 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.

[FR Doc. 2016-29131 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P