Publication Requirements for Agricultural Products; Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review, 805-809 [2016-31906]

Agencies

• Surface Transportation Board

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 805-809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31906]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

49 CFR Part 1300

[Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1); Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)]


Publication Requirements for Agricultural Products; Rail 
Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Surface 
Transportation Board (Board or STB) proposes amendments to its 
regulations governing the publication, availability, and retention for 
public inspection of rail carrier rate and service terms for 
agricultural products and fertilizer. The Board also clarifies its 
policies on standing and aggregation of claims as they relate to rate 
complaint procedures.

DATES: Comments are due February 21, 2017; replies are due by March 20, 
2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing 
format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing 
should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at 
the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at https://www.stb.gov. Any 
person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send 
an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: 
Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-
0001. Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and 
self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be 
posted to the Board's Web site.

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 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In November 2006, the Board held a hearing 
in Rail Transportation of Grain, Docket No. EP 665, as a forum for 
interested persons to provide views and information about grain 
transportation markets. The hearing was prompted by concerns regarding 
rates and service issues related to the movement of grain raised by 
Members of Congress, grain producers, and other stakeholders. In 
January 2008, the Board closed that proceeding, reasoning that 
guidelines for simplified rate procedures had recently been adopted \1\ 
and that those procedures would provide grain shippers with a new 
avenue for rate relief. Rail Transp. of Grain, EP 665, slip op. at 5 
(STB served Jan. 14, 2008). The Board noted, however, that it would 
continue to monitor the relationship between carriers and grain 
interests, and that, if future regulatory action were warranted, it 
would open a new proceeding. Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) 
(STB served Sept. 5, 2007), aff'd sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, 
568 F.3d 236 (D.C. Cir.), vacated in part on reh'g, 584 F.3d 1076 
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715 (STB served July 25, 2012), the 
Board proposed several changes to its rate reasonableness rules. 
However, based on the comments received in that docket from grain 
shipper interests, which in part stated that the proposed changes did 
not provide meaningful relief to grain shippers, the Board commenced a 
separate proceeding in Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation 
Review, Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) in December 2013 to deal 
specifically with the concerns of grain shippers. The Board invited 
public comment on how to ensure that the Board's existing rate 
complaint procedures are accessible to grain shippers and provide 
effective protection against unreasonable freight rail transportation 
rates. The Board also sought input from interested parties on grain 
shippers' ability to effectively seek relief for unreasonable rates, 
including proposals for modifying existing procedures, or new 
alternative rate relief methodologies, should they be necessary. The 
Board received comments and replies from numerous parties.
    On May 8, 2015, the Board announced that it would hold a public 
hearing, and invited parties to discuss rate reasonableness 
accessibility for grain shippers, as well as other issues, including: 
Whether the Board should allow multiple agricultural farmers and other 
agricultural shippers to aggregate their distinct rate claims against 
the same carrier into a single proceeding, and whether the disclosure 
requirement for agricultural tariff rates should be modified to allow 
for increased transparency. The public hearing was held on June 10, 
2015, and the Board received post-hearing supplemental comments from 
interested parties through June 24, 2015.
    Although much of the commentary and testimony received pertained to 
existing or proposed rate relief methodologies for agricultural 
commodity shippers, the comments and

[[Page 806]]

testimony also touched on various other issues related to the rail 
transportation of grain. In order to address the comments pertaining to 
rate relief methodologies, the Board issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, which proposed to develop a new rate 
reasonableness methodology for use in very small disputes, in a 
decision served on August 31, 2016, in Docket Nos. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) 
and EP 665 (Sub-No. 2). Additionally, based on the comments and 
testimony received regarding other issues related to the rail 
transportation of grain,\2\ the Board today proposes amendments to its 
regulations on publication of rates for agricultural products and 
fertilizer in a new proceeding, Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1), and sets 
forth policy statements regarding aggregation of claims and standing. 
The Board's proposals and clarifications with respect to these issues 
are discussed below. Finally, the Board is terminating the proceeding 
in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a list of the numerous parties that have participated in 
the Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) proceeding at various stages, as 
set forth below. To the extent this decision refers to parties by 
abbreviations, those abbreviations are listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Proposed Rules Regarding Agricultural Rate Publication

    In the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 
803, Congress eliminated the tariff requirements that were formerly 
applicable to rail carriers and imposed instead certain obligations to 
disclose common carriage rates and service terms. One of these 
requirements, applicable only to the transportation of agricultural 
products, is that rail carriers must publish, make available, and 
retain for public inspection, their common carrier rates, schedules of 
rates, and other service terms, and any proposed and actual changes to 
such rates and service terms. 49 U.S.C. 11101(d). The statute states 
that the term ``agricultural products'' includes grain, as defined in 7 
U.S.C. 75 and all products thereof, and fertilizer. Id.
    The Board adopted regulations to implement the requirements of 
Sec.  11101(d), in Disclosure, Publication, & Notice of Change of Rates 
& Other Service Terms for Rail Common Carriage, 1 S.T.B. 153 (1996). 
Those regulations are codified at 49 CFR 1300.5. Under those 
regulations, the information required to be published ``must include an 
accurate description of the services offered to the public; must 
provide the specific applicable rates (or the basis for calculating the 
specific applicable rates), charges, and service terms; and must be 
arranged in a way that allows for the determination of the exact rate, 
charges, and service terms applicable to any given shipment (or to any 
given group of shipments).'' 49 CFR 1300.5(b). Rail carriers also must 
make the information available, without charge during normal business 
hours, at offices where they normally keep rate information, 49 CFR 
1300.5(c), and to all persons who have subscribed to a publication 
service operated either by the rail carrier itself or by an agent 
acting at the rail carrier's direction, 49 CFR 1300.5(d).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Board noted when adopting these regulations that the 
publication requirements were applicable only to non-exempted 
agricultural products and fertilizer. Disclosure, 1 S.T.B. at 160. 
Many agricultural commodities and products have been exempted as a 
class from the Board's regulation. See 49 CFR 1039.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In announcing the June 2015 hearing in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 
1), the Board invited parties to discuss whether there are any ways in 
which the Board could create greater transparency for grain shippers 
regarding how railroads set rates. Specifically, the Board invited 
parties to address the disclosure requirements for agricultural rates 
under 49 CFR 1300.5 and whether this requirement should be modified to 
allow for increased transparency.
    Shippers generally had differing opinions as to the availability of 
agricultural tariff rates and their transparency. On the one hand, ARC 
asserts that there is a ``[n]eed for increased access to railroad 
public documents such as tariffs which serve to provide education (to 
agricultural producers, small and large elevators, and merchandisers)'' 
and for ``access to more complete summaries of transportation 
contracts, and operational data.'' (ARC Opening, V.S. Whiteside 8.) In 
its testimony, ARC raised concerns that certain public rates were no 
longer available for review online and stated that, although it was 
recently able to view a Class I railroad's rates online, it no longer 
is able to do so, even after registering through the railroad's Web 
site. (Hr'g Tr. 353:1-17, June 10, 2015.) NGFA, on the other hand, 
testified that Class I railroads make their tariffs available online 
and searchable and, although some Class I railroad tariffs may be more 
``user-friendly'' than others, the Class I's tariffs are publicly 
available. (Hr'g Tr. 181:2-9, June 10, 2015.)
    The Class I railroads that addressed this issue generally state 
that their common carrier agricultural rates are available online to 
varying degrees. At the June 2015 hearing, CSXT testified that its 
``tariff [rates] are readily available on the internet'' and that, in 
the company's experience, the tariff [rates] are used by companies of 
varying sizes for many different reasons. (Hr'g Tr. 280:7-19, June 10, 
2015.) BNSF stated that its ``tariff rates are available to all of our 
shippers that ship on us.'' (Hr'g Tr. 251:3-12, June 10, 2015.)
    Based on the comments and testimony received, the Board proposes 
amendments to 49 CFR 1300.5 to update the publication requirements for 
the transportation of agricultural products and fertilizer in a new 
proceeding, Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1). These publication 
requirements, adopted in 1996, should be revised to reflect the fact 
that Class I railroads often use company Web sites and/or applications 
to disseminate information to customers and the general public. The 
1996 decision adopting the current rules discussed publication methods 
that likely were more prevalent at the time (i.e., subscription 
services and maintenance of paper documents at physical railroad 
offices). Given the changes in the commonly used methods to disseminate 
information and the fact that some railroads already have agricultural 
rate and service information on their Web sites, the Board believes it 
is appropriate to update our regulations to reflect these modern 
practices. All rail carriers would continue to be required to make the 
required information available to the public at their offices as well.
    The Board's proposed amendments to 49 CFR 1300.5 are set forth 
below. Under our proposed change to Sec.  1300.5(c), Class I rail 
carriers would be required to make publicly available online the 
information that is currently required under Sec.  1300.5(a), which 
includes currently effective rates, schedules of rates, charges, and 
other service terms, and any scheduled changes to such rates, charges, 
and service terms for agricultural products and fertilizer.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We do not propose to require Class II and III carriers to 
comply with the online publication requirement, as this may be a 
significant burden to Class II and III carriers that do not have Web 
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would also continue to require that this information 
be made available to ``any person'' that seeks such information, as 
currently required by Sec.  1300.5(c), so that the rate information 
published online would be readily available to anyone, regardless of 
whether a person is a current or potential customer or receiver of a 
railroad.\5\ In addition, the Board

[[Page 807]]

proposes amendments to 49 CFR 1300.5 that would direct parties that are 
having difficulty accessing the tariff rates for agricultural 
commodities and fertilizer to contact the Board's Office of Public 
Assistance, Government Affairs, and Compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Board does not propose restricting railroads from using 
a registration feature to view tariff information online. However, 
under the proposed rules, the Board would expect that such 
registration be structured in a manner that allows any person to 
view the tariffs for agricultural commodities and fertilizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board invites public comment on these proposed changes and 
whether additional changes are needed to promote greater rate 
transparency consistent with Sec.  11101(d).

Clarification of Aggregation of Claims and Standing Issues

    In response to its December 2013 request for comments in Docket No. 
EP 665 (Sub-No. 1), the Board received comments related to whether 
grain producers as indirect purchasers of rail transportation have the 
legal right to file rate complaints under 49 U.S.C. 11701(b). The Board 
also received comments on the ability of groups of producers or 
elevators to bring claims, or the ability of State Attorneys General to 
act on behalf of agricultural producers in a state. In its May 8, 2015 
hearing notice, the Board invited parties to discuss whether the Board 
should allow multiple agricultural producers and other agricultural 
shippers to aggregate their distinct rate claims against the same 
carrier into a single proceeding.
    Shippers and government entities agree that Board clarification on 
the legal standing of grain producers (or other indirect purchasers of 
rail transportation) to file rate complaints and aggregate their claims 
would be beneficial. ARC requested that the Board confirm that grain 
producers have the legal right to file rate complaints, and that such 
complaints are not subject to dismissal due to the absence of direct 
damage to the complainant. (ARC Opening, V.S. Whiteside 28.) According 
to ARC, such confirmation would reassure many grain producers who may 
be unsure of whether they would have standing to file a rate case. 
(Id.) Similarly, NGFA argued that aggregation of claims would allow 
parties that do not ``directly pay the rate but feel the brunt of the 
rate to bring claims.'' (Hr'g Tr. 171:6-14, June 10, 2015.) NGFA stated 
that without further clarification from the Board, standing would be a 
deterrent to agricultural producers filing a rate case.\6\ (Hr'g Tr. 
171-72, June 10, 2015.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NGFA and other parties also raise issues related to 
``whether parties who indirectly suffer from rate increases can 
receive reparations.'' (Hr'g Tr. 172:8-21, June 10, 2015.) UP, for 
its part, requested that, if the Board clarifies that indirect 
purchasers of rail transportation can file rate complaints, the 
Board also clarify that parties that did not pay the rate may not 
recover reparations. (UP Reply 38.) The Board is not addressing the 
issue of reparations in this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, USDA suggests that the Board amend its rate challenge 
procedures to allow ``groups of agricultural producers, groups of 
elevators, or State Attorneys General to act on behalf of agricultural 
producers in that State.'' (USDA Opening 10.) To the same end, the 
Montana Department of Agriculture testified that parties must be 
allowed to aggregate their claims in order to capitalize on economies 
of scale. (Hr'g Tr. 71:7-9, June 10, 2015.) The Montana Department of 
Agriculture testified that allowing real parties of interest that are 
similarly situated to bring an aggregated claim would not only increase 
efficiency for the Board and protect rail carriers from piecemeal 
litigation, but also allow State Attorneys General to bring claims on 
behalf of shippers and producers without ``fear [of] retaliation'' or 
``regard to shareholder profits'' and with the resources and the 
transportation expertise needed to effectively pursue a just remedy.\7\ 
(Hr'g Tr. 71:11-22, June 10, 2015.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Montana Department of Agriculture also testified that a 
rule mandating arbitration for certain cases could require 
aggregated claims with a value of less than $500,000 brought by 
fewer than 15 farmers to be subject to mandatory arbitration, though 
we do not address arbitration in this decision. (Hr'g Tr. 73:15-19, 
June 10, 2015.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rail carriers generally do not oppose shippers' request for 
clarification on aggregation of claims and standing, although some 
railroads state that Board precedent is clear on these issues and does 
not require further explanation. For instance, NSR comments that 49 
U.S.C. 11701(b) is clear that third parties may bring rate cases even 
if they did not pay directly for the transportation in question, but 
states that it nonetheless does not oppose the Board ``reaffirming the 
principle that on a case-by-case basis a party can bring a rate 
challenge . . . [if] it can demonstrate a sufficient nexus to the rate 
at issue . . . .'' \8\ (NSR Reply 7.) Similarly, UP states that the 
Board ``could clarify that a party need not sustain damages to file a 
rate complaint, so long as the party would otherwise have standing.'' 
(UP Reply 38; see also AAR Reply 24-25.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NSR also asserted that the Board should not extend standing 
to ``parties with insignificant connections to the transportation'' 
or ``permit other attempts to combine unrelated transportation into 
a single rate challenge.'' (NSR Reply 7, Aug. 25, 2014.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BNSF, however, opposes shippers' requests for clarification on 
standing. BNSF argues that only parties directly responsible for 
freight charges may seek damages in rate cases and that, for parties 
seeking non-damage forms of relief, whether they have standing is a 
``highly fact-specific'' determination for which there is no basis in 
the record. (BNSF Reply 2-3.)
    The Board will address standing and aggregation of claims, as the 
questions raised by some of the comments suggest that clarification 
would be beneficial. Under 49 U.S.C. 11701(b), a person, including a 
governmental authority, may file a complaint with the Board about a 
violation of part A, subtitle IV of title 49 by a rail carrier 
providing transportation or service subject to the Board's 
jurisdiction. Under Sec.  11701(b), the Board may not dismiss such a 
complaint because of the ``absence of direct damage to the 
complainant.'' Thus, the statute permits parties to bring a rate 
complaint, even if they have not been directly harmed or did not 
directly pay for the transportation for which relief is sought. 
Accordingly, grain producers (and other indirectly harmed complainants) 
that file rate complaints cannot be disqualified due to the absence of 
direct damage.
    At the same time, complainants that allege indirect harm in rate 
complaints must still have standing in order to proceed with a 
complaint, which is determined by the Board on a case-by-case basis. In 
making such determinations, the Board is ``not bound by the strict 
requirements of standing that otherwise govern judicial proceedings,'' 
but it may still look to the courts' test to determine whether a party 
has standing to bring an action. See Riffin--Acquis. & Operation 
Exemption--in York Cty., Pa., FD 34501, et al., slip op. at 5 (STB 
served Feb. 23, 2005) (citing N.C. R.R.--Pet. to Set Trackage Comp. & 
Other Terms & Conditions--Norfolk S. Ry., FD 33134, slip op. at 2 n.9 
(STB served May 29, 1997); Mo. Pac. R.R.--Aban.--in Douglas Champaign & 
Vermillion Ctys., Ill., AB 3 (Sub-No. 103), slip op. at 3 n.4 (ICC 
served Nov. 3, 1994)). When a complainant files a rate complaint, the 
Board may consider, for instance, whether the complainant has suffered 
an injury in fact, whether the injury is fairly traceable to the 
defendant's challenged conduct, and whether the injury is one likely to 
be redressed through a favorable decision. See Riffin, FD 34501, et 
al., slip op. at 5 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 
560-61 (1991)). Indirect damage, therefore, is not a bar to grain 
producers or other indirect purchasers of rail transportation bringing 
a complaint, but such complainants must still establish

[[Page 808]]

that they have standing to proceed with a complaint.
    Given that agricultural producers have previously been found to 
have standing to challenge the rail transportation rate for their 
grain, the Board expects that other producers would be able to 
establish standing as well. See McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Burlington N., 
Inc., 91 F.R.D. 486 (D. Mont. 1981). Grain producers should be able to 
establish standing because, as various commenters acknowledge, the 
price the producers are paid by elevators for their grain is generally 
affected at least to some extent by the transportation rate the 
railroad charged to the grain elevators.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NGFA Opening 7-8 (``[T]he rail transportation rates and 
terms are established between the elevator/aggregator and the 
railroad, with the cost of rail transportation typically being borne 
ultimately by the producer/farmer in the price paid by the elevator 
for the crop. . . . As rail rates are increased, the price that a 
captive elevator will pay for the farmer's crop usually decreases by 
a commensurate amount.''); ARC Opening 9 (``[I]f rail rates on 
merchandise shipments rise, the cost may be borne by millions of 
customers paying a few cents more at Walmart and similar stores. For 
grain, the rail rate buck tends to stop with farmers.''); NSR Reply 
6-7 (``NS understands that for some agricultural commodities, grain 
elevators or other parties actually contract for the transportation, 
even though farmers may be price takers and thus receive higher or 
lower prices for their crop based on the cost of transportation.''); 
USDA Opening 4 (``It is well established that transportation costs 
can have a direct impact on agricultural producers' profits . . . . 
Agricultural producers in remote areas have few transportation 
alternatives, and the price they receive for their products is net 
of transportation . . . .''); BNSF Reply, V.S. Wilson 8 
(acknowledging that rail rates are one factor influencing prices 
that grain producers receive for their grain).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For parties who have standing, the Board sees no reason not to 
permit the aggregation of claims where appropriate. Indeed, the Board 
has previously conducted proceedings involving class action claims, see 
McCarty Farms, and acknowledged its ability to do so, see NSL, Inc. v. 
Whitlock, NOM 41997 et al., slip op. at 5 (STB served Apr. 5, 2000). 
Therefore, in response to comments received in this proceeding, the 
Board confirms that parties may seek to aggregate their rate claims. In 
determining whether to permit the aggregation of claims, the Board will 
consider, on a case-by-case basis, factors such as, whether the claims 
or defenses involve common questions of law or fact, whether 
administrative efficiencies could be achieved through aggregation, and 
the number of claims being aggregated.

Terminating Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)

    As explained earlier, the Board sought input from interested 
parties regarding effective rate relief ideas for grain shippers in 
Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1). With respect to comments that addressed 
the Board's existing or proposed rate methodologies, the Board recently 
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore a new rate 
reasonableness methodology. Expanding Access to Rate Relief, EP 665 
(Sub-No. 2) (STB served Aug. 31, 2016). In addition, the present 
decision addresses agricultural rate publication, standing, and 
aggregation of claims, which were also raised in Docket No. EP 665 
(Sub-No. 1). While these two decisions do not purport to address every 
suggestion offered in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1), the Board 
considered all of the comments that were received in determining how to 
proceed at this time. Therefore, the Board will terminate Docket No. EP 
665 (Sub-No. 1) in the interest of administrative finality.

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. Sec. Sec.  601-604. In 
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the agency must either include an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, Sec.  603(a), or certify that 
the proposed rule would not have a ``significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Sec.  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 Board's proposed regulations in Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1) 
would clarify and update existing procedures related to the publication 
of rates for agricultural products and fertilizers and, therefore, do 
not mandate or circumscribe additional conduct for small entities. To 
the extent that the Board's proposal imposes a new requirement in the 
form of requiring rate information to be published online, that 
requirement is limited to Class I rail carriers.\10\ 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 
as defined by 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis, 
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 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 rail carriers have annual 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1300

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

    It is ordered:
    1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this 
decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    2. Comments regarding the proposed rules are due by February 21, 
2017. Replies are due by March 20, 2017.
    3. 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.
    4. The Board issues the policy statement set forth above.
    5. The proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) is terminated.
    6. This decision is effective on the day of service.


    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller and 
Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Miller commented with a separate 
expression.
Raina S. Contee,
Clearance Clerk.

Vice Chairman Miller, Commenting

    In Petition of Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation, 
Inc. to Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding to Exempt Railroads from 
Filing Agricultural Transportation Contract Summaries, EP 725 (STB 
served Aug. 11, 2014), I committed to work with agency staff to 
explore whether the format of the summaries could be made more 
useful and ensure whether the carriers were properly complying with 
the filing requirements. I have since discussed with staff the idea 
of compiling the summary requirements into one source that would 
allow stakeholders to view the contract summary information 
collectively. However, because the carriers each report information 
differently, and because some of the

[[Page 809]]

individual fields in one summary can contain pages of information, 
creating a single source has proven difficult. As for compliance, 
the staff of the Board's Office of Governmental Affairs, Public 
Assistance, and Compliance (OPAGAC) has been monitoring the 
summaries to ensure that they are being properly filed. I will 
continue to hold briefings with the OPAGAC staff to be made aware of 
any issues with the summaries that arise.
    Additionally, in the course of developing this NPRM, I 
considered a number of ideas on how to modify the contract summary 
requirements so that they would provide more value, as well as 
address issues that are not currently covered by the existing 
regulations. However, the record here does not contain sufficient 
information that would help us to even begin making changes. Without 
such information, I am hesitant to tinker with the existing 
regulations. Accordingly, I ultimately decided that it would not be 
advisable to urge the Board to propose changes to the current 
requirements at this time.

Participants in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)

    The Board received comments and testimony from the following 
parties in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1).
    Opening comments were received from:

 Alliance for Rail Competition (ARC) (joined by Montana Wheat 
and Barley Committee, National Farmers Union, Colorado Wheat 
Administrative Committee, Idaho Barley Commission, Idaho Grain 
Producers Association, Idaho Wheat Commission, Montana Farmers Union, 
North Dakota Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Farmers Union, 
South Dakota Corn Growers Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, 
Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Farmers Union, Wisconsin 
Farmers Union, Nebraska Wheat Board, Oklahoma Wheat Commission, Oregon 
Wheat Commission, South Dakota Wheat Commission, Texas Wheat Producers 
Board, Washington Grain Commission, Wyoming Wheat Marketing Commission, 
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, and National Corn Growers Association)
 Association of American Railroads (AAR)
 BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)
 CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT)
 National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)
 Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR)
 Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    Reply comments were received from:

 AAR
 Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Agribusiness Council of 
Indiana, Agricultural Retailers Association, American Bakers 
Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry 
Association, American Soybean Association, California Grain and Feed 
Association, Corn Refiners Association, Institute of Shortening and 
Edible Oils, Kansas Cooperative Council, Kansas Grain and Feed 
Association, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, Michigan 
Agribusiness Association, Michigan Bean Shippers Association, Minnesota 
Grain And Feed Association, Missouri Agribusiness Association, Montana 
Grain Elevators Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 
National Farmers Union, National Oilseed Processors Association, 
Nebraska Grain and Feed Association, North American Millers' 
Association, North Dakota Grain Dealers Association, Northeast 
Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, Ohio Agribusiness Association, Oklahoma 
Grain and Feed Association, Pacific Northwest Grain and Feed 
Association, Pet Food Institute, South Dakota Grain and Feed 
Association, Texas Grain and Feed Association, USA Rice Federation, and 
Wisconsin Agribusiness Association (collectively, AAI)
 ARC (joined by the same parties that joined its opening 
comment as well as the Nebraska Corn Growers Association)
 BNSF
 CSXT
 Kansas City Southern Railway Company
 NGFA
 NSR
 Jay L. Schollmeyer for and on behalf of SMART-TD General 
Committee of Adjustment (SMART-TD)
 Texas Trading and Transportation Services, LLC, dba TTMS 
Group, together with Montana Grain Growers Association (TTMS Group)
 UP
 USDA

    Testimony at the June 10, 2015 hearing was received from:

 AAR
 ARC
 BNSF
 Canadian National Railway Company
 Canadian Pacific Railway Company
 CSXT
 Michigan Agri-Business Association \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Written testimony only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Montana Department of Agriculture
 NGFA
 NSR
 SMART-TD
 Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 
Sciences
 TTMS Group
 UP
 USDA

    Supplemental comments were received from:

 AAR
 ARC (joined by the same parties that joined its opening 
comment)
 NSR

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1300

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface 
Transportation Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X, of the Code 
of Federal Regulations by revising part 1300 to read as follows:

PART 1300--DISCLOSURE, PUBLICATION, AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF RATES 
AND OTHER SERVICE TERMS FOR RAIL COMMON CARRIAGE

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1300 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11101(f).


Sec.  1300.5  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  1300.5 by adding two sentences at the end of paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1300.5  Additional publication requirement for agricultural 
products and fertilizer.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * If a rail carrier is a Class I rail carrier, it must also 
make the information available to any person online. Persons having 
difficulty accessing this information should either send a written 
inquiry addressed to the Director, Office of Public Assistance, 
Government Affairs, and Compliance or should telephone the Board's 
Office of Public Assistance, Government Affairs, and Compliance.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-31906 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P