Delmarva Central Railroad Company-Lease and Operation Exemption With Interchange Commitment-Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 13040-13041 [2017-04472]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13040
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 8, 2017 / Notices
Total Burden Hours (annually
including all respondents): 2,745 hours
(183 estimated hours per petition × total
number of petitions (15)).
Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost:
$18,540 (estimated non-hour burden
cost per petition ($1,236) × total number
of petitions (15)).
Needs and Uses: Under 5 U.S.C.
554(e) and 49 U.S.C. 1321, the Board
may issue a declaratory order to
terminate a controversy or remove
uncertainty. Because petitions for
declaratory orders cover a broad range
of requests, the Board does not prescribe
specific instructions for the filing of
them. The collection by the Board of
petitions for declaratory orders enables
the Board to meet its statutory duty to
regulate the rail industry.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Collection Number 3
Title: Petitions for relief not otherwise
provided.
OMB Control Number: 2140–0030.
STB Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Extension with
change.
Respondents: Affected shippers,
railroads and communities that seek to
address transportation-related issues
under the Board’s jurisdiction that are
not otherwise specifically provided for
under the Board’s other regulatory
provisions.
Number of Respondents:
Approximately four.3
Estimated Time per Response: 24.5
hours.
Frequency: On occasion. In calendar
years 2014–2016, approximately four
petitions of this type were filed with the
Board.
Total Burden Hours (annually
including all respondents): 98
(estimated hours per petition (24.5) ×
total number of petitions (4)).
Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: $280
(estimated non-hour burden cost per
petition ($70) × total number of
petitions (four)).
Needs and Uses: Under 49 U.S.C.
1321 and 49 CFR part 1117 (the Board’s
catch-all petition provision), shippers,
railroads, and the public in general may
seek relief (such as petitions seeking
waivers of the Board’s regulations) not
otherwise specifically provided for
under the Board’s other regulatory
provisions. Under section 1117.1, such
petitions should contain three items: (a)
3 In this notice, the Board has updated its estimate
of the number of respondents and responses based
on the number of catch-all petitions filed with the
Board in calendar years 2014–2016. Staff believes
this more accurately reflects future filings.
Accordingly, its estimate of the number of
respondents and responses has changed from five,
as set forth in its 60-day notice, to four.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
A short, plain statement of jurisdiction,
(b) a short, plain statement of
petitioner’s claim, and (c) request for
relief. The collection by the Board of
these petitions enables the Board to
more fully meet its statutory duty to
regulate the rail industry.
Under the PRA, a Federal agency
conducting or sponsoring a collection of
information must display a currently
valid OMB control number. A collection
of information, which is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
includes agency requirements that
persons submit reports, keep records, or
provide information to the agency, third
parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of
the PRA requires, concurrent with an
agency’s submitting a collection to OMB
for approval, a 30-day notice and
comment period through publication in
the Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information.
Dated: March 3, 2017.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2017–04555 Filed 3–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36071]
Delmarva Central Railroad Company—
Lease and Operation Exemption With
Interchange Commitment—Norfolk
Southern Railway Company
On November 17, 2016, Delmarva
Central Railroad Company (DCR), at that
time a noncarrier, filed a verified notice
of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to
lease and operate approximately 161.59
miles of rail line (the Line) owned by
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NSR). Notice of the exemption was
served and published in the Federal
Register on December 2, 2016 (81 FR
87,122).1
On December 14, 2016, SMART/TD
Delaware State Legislative Board
(SMART/TD) petitioned the Board to
revoke the lease and operation
exemption.2 SMART/TD asserts that the
DCR’s lease and operation has economic
1 DCR’s parent, Carload Express, Inc. (Carload),
filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in
control of DCR upon DCR’s becoming a Class III
carrier. See Carload Express, Inc.—Continuance in
Control Exemption—Delmarva Cent. R.R., Docket
No. FD 36072. Notice of that exemption was also
served and published in the Federal Register on
December 2, 2016. (81 FR 87,123).
2 No stay was sought or imposed. Because the
effective date was not stayed, the exemption
became effective on December 17, 2016. DCR later
notified the Board that it has since consummated
the transaction.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and safety considerations that should be
investigated by the Board. In particular,
SMART/TD claims that DCR, a company
with fewer resources than NSR, cannot
adequately maintain the Line’s rails and
bridges as they have been maintained by
NSR. SMART/TD notes that the Line
crosses three bridges, two of those
bridges are 100 years old and the
remaining bridge is 60 years old. It notes
that one of the bridges was recently out
of service for 30 days and questions
whether DCR could have restored the
bridge in the same expeditious manner
as NSR, given DCR’s ‘‘limited finances.’’
It further asserts that the Line is
deteriorating and maintenance will
become increasingly expensive.
SMART/TD also claims that there are no
insurance minimums in place for
smaller carriers and that it fears that
local taxpayers might be forced to carry
the burden in case of a disaster.
SMART/TD also asserts that the lease
will result in replacing a ‘‘qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable’’ labor
force with ‘‘untrained and unfamiliar’’
employees, which, according to
SMART/TD, raises safety concerns.
According to SMART/TD, these
concerns implicate the national rail
transportation policy (RTP) goal of
‘‘operat[ing] transportation facilities and
equipment without detriment to the
public health and safety.’’ 49 U.S.C.
10101(8). Moreover, citing the RTP
policy goal of ‘‘encourag[ing] fair wages
and safe and suitable working
conditions in the railroad industry,’’ 49
U.S.C. 10101(11), SMART/TD asserts
that DCR will employ ‘‘an inferior,
unqualified labor force that is willing to
accept less money because they are less
qualified,’’ and that DCR’s employees’
wages and benefits will be inferior to
those of Class I railroad employees.
DCR filed a reply on December 27,
2016. In response to SMART/TD’s
suggestion that DCR cannot safely
operate the Line, DCR notes that it is
under the control of Carload, a
noncarrier holding company that owns
and operates other Class III carriers. See,
e.g., Carload Express, Inc.—
Continuance in Control Exemption—
Ohio Terminal Ry., FD 35704 (STB
served Jan. 11, 2013). As such, DCR
states that its owners, managers, and
personnel are already familiar with the
safety regulations administered by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
DCR states that it will operate the Line
in accordance with FRA regulations.
DCR further explains that the
concerns about bridge maintenance are
unwarranted. DCR states that NSR has
maintained the bridges in full
compliance with FRA standards and
safe operating practices. DCR notes that,
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 8, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
although one of the bridges was closed
for 30 days, this was for routine
maintenance and resulted from
construction delays caused by weather
conditions. DCR adds that it has
inspected the bridges and has the
knowledge and resources to maintain
them.
As to concerns about wages and
benefits, DCR asserts that it offers some
of the best wages and benefits of any
employer on the Delmarva Peninsula.
DCR notes that it received more
applications for employment than there
are available positions. It adds that it
requires all its employees to abide by all
applicable safety rules and offers
suitable working conditions.
Discussion and Conclusions
Because DCR’s lease and operation
exemption has gone into effect, SMART/
TD’s request will be treated as a petition
to reopen and revoke the exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d).3 Under 49
U.S.C. 10502(d), an exemption may be
revoked, in whole or in part, if the
Board finds that regulation of the
transaction is necessary to carry out the
RTP of 49 U.S.C. 10101. Under 49 CFR
1115.3(b), the petition must state in
detail whether revocation is supported
by material error, new evidence, or
substantially changed circumstances.
See N.Y. Cent. Lines—Aban.
Exemption—in Montgomery &
Schenectady Ctys., N.Y., AB 565 (SubNo. 14X) (STB served Jan. 22, 2004).
The party seeking revocation has the
burden of showing that regulation is
necessary to carry out the RTP, 49 CFR
1121.4(f), and petitions to revoke must
be based on reasonable, specific
concerns demonstrating that revocation
of the exemption is warranted and more
detailed scrutiny of the transaction is
necessary. See Consol. Rail Corp.—
Trackage Rights Exemption—Mo. Pac.
R.R., FD 32662 (STB served June 18,
1998).
Here, SMART/TD fails to establish
that revocation of the exemption is
necessary to carry out the RTP.
Although SMART/TD has cited the RTP
goals of operating without detriment to
the public health and safety (49 U.S.C.
10101(8)) and encouraging fair wages
and suitable working conditions (49
U.S.C. 10101(11)), it has not shown that
regulation is necessary to carry out these
goals.
3 See
e.g., BNSF Ry.—Trackage Rights
Exemption—Union Pac. R.R., FD 35601, slip op. at
3–4 (STB served Sept. 11, 2013); Watco Holdings,
Inc.—Acquis. of Control Exemption—Wis. & S. R.R.,
FD 35573, slip op. at 1–2 (STB served Mar. 22,
2012); Elk River R.R.—Constr. & Operation
Exemption—Clay & Kanawha Ctys., W.Va., FD
31989, slip op. at 1 n.3 (STB served Apr. 11, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
The Board takes safety concerns
seriously; however, SMART/TD’s
concerns here are vague and speculative
and do not arise from any demonstrated
shortcomings specific to DCR. DCR has
expressed a commitment to abide by
FRA regulations, and its parent,
Carload, is familiar with FRA’s
requirements. As to maintenance, DCR
states that it has already inspected the
bridges and has explained the one
extended bridge closure cited by
SMART/TD. Furthermore, NSR’s
contract with DCR obligates DCR to
comply with FRA standards of
operation, to maintain the tracks at
standards specified by NSR, and to carry
certain insurance policies covering
incidents that might occur while
operating the Line.
SMART/TD’s concern about DCR’s
having fewer resources than NSR, the
Line’s Class I owner, also does not
warrant revocation. Class I carriers
routinely spin-off lines to newly formed
Class III carriers, and SMART/TD has
not demonstrated that DCR will be any
less prepared to assume the
responsibility to maintain and operate
the Line that any other new Class III
carrier would be. Moreover, as DCR
notes, its parent company, Carload, is an
experienced shortline operator. DCR
explains that Carload’s railroads ‘‘have
strong safety records and there have
been no FRA or STB reported
allegations that its shortline employees
have been treated unfairly or required to
operate in unsafe conditions;’’ SMART/
TD has offered no evidence to the
contrary. SMART/TD has also failed to
show that the labor impact here is
different from, or greater than, the
impacts typically associated with the
acquisition of a rail line by any new
carrier.
For the foregoing reasons, SMART/TD
has not shown that reopening and
revocation are supported by material
error, new evidence, or substantially
changed circumstances, or that applying
the Board’s regulation to the transaction
is necessary to carry out the RTP.
Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to
revoke DCR’s exemption or begin a
revocation proceeding.
It is ordered:
1. SMART/TD’s petition to revoke
DCR’s exemption is denied.
2. This decision is effective on its date
of service.
Decided: March 1, 2017.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman,
Elliott, and Miller.
Raina S. Contee,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2017–04472 Filed 3–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13041
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
60-Day Notice of Intent To Seek
Extension of Approval: Information
Collection Activities (Report of Fuel
Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge
Revenue)
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork burdens, and as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Surface Transportation
Board (STB or Board) gives notice that
it is requesting from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) an
extension of approval for the collection
of the Report of Fuel Cost,
Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue.
DATES: Comments on this information
collection should be submitted by May
8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to
Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001, or to
pra@stb.gov. When submitting
comments, please refer to ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act Comments, Report of
Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge
Revenue.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information regarding this
collection, contact Michael Higgins,
Deputy Director, Office of Public
Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and
Compliance at (202) 245–0284 or at
Michael.Higgins@stb.gov. Assistance for
the hearing impaired is available
through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For each
collection, comments are requested
concerning: (1) The accuracy of the
Board’s burden estimates; (2) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; (3) 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; and (4) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Board, including
whether the collection has practical
utility. Submitted comments will be
summarized and included in the
Board’s request for OMB approval.
SUMMARY:
Description of Collection
Title: Report of Fuel Cost,
Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue.
OMB Control Number: 2140–0014.
STB Form Number: None.
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13040-13041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04472]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36071]
Delmarva Central Railroad Company--Lease and Operation Exemption
With Interchange Commitment--Norfolk Southern Railway Company
On November 17, 2016, Delmarva Central Railroad Company (DCR), at
that time a noncarrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49
CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate approximately 161.59 miles of rail
line (the Line) owned by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). Notice
of the exemption was served and published in the Federal Register on
December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87,122).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DCR's parent, Carload Express, Inc. (Carload), filed a
verified notice of exemption to continue in control of DCR upon
DCR's becoming a Class III carrier. See Carload Express, Inc.--
Continuance in Control Exemption--Delmarva Cent. R.R., Docket No. FD
36072. Notice of that exemption was also served and published in the
Federal Register on December 2, 2016. (81 FR 87,123).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2016, SMART/TD Delaware State Legislative Board
(SMART/TD) petitioned the Board to revoke the lease and operation
exemption.\2\ SMART/TD asserts that the DCR's lease and operation has
economic and safety considerations that should be investigated by the
Board. In particular, SMART/TD claims that DCR, a company with fewer
resources than NSR, cannot adequately maintain the Line's rails and
bridges as they have been maintained by NSR. SMART/TD notes that the
Line crosses three bridges, two of those bridges are 100 years old and
the remaining bridge is 60 years old. It notes that one of the bridges
was recently out of service for 30 days and questions whether DCR could
have restored the bridge in the same expeditious manner as NSR, given
DCR's ``limited finances.'' It further asserts that the Line is
deteriorating and maintenance will become increasingly expensive.
SMART/TD also claims that there are no insurance minimums in place for
smaller carriers and that it fears that local taxpayers might be forced
to carry the burden in case of a disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ No stay was sought or imposed. Because the effective date
was not stayed, the exemption became effective on December 17, 2016.
DCR later notified the Board that it has since consummated the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMART/TD also asserts that the lease will result in replacing a
``qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable'' labor force with
``untrained and unfamiliar'' employees, which, according to SMART/TD,
raises safety concerns. According to SMART/TD, these concerns implicate
the national rail transportation policy (RTP) goal of ``operat[ing]
transportation facilities and equipment without detriment to the public
health and safety.'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(8). Moreover, citing the RTP
policy goal of ``encourag[ing] fair wages and safe and suitable working
conditions in the railroad industry,'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(11), SMART/TD
asserts that DCR will employ ``an inferior, unqualified labor force
that is willing to accept less money because they are less qualified,''
and that DCR's employees' wages and benefits will be inferior to those
of Class I railroad employees.
DCR filed a reply on December 27, 2016. In response to SMART/TD's
suggestion that DCR cannot safely operate the Line, DCR notes that it
is under the control of Carload, a noncarrier holding company that owns
and operates other Class III carriers. See, e.g., Carload Express,
Inc.--Continuance in Control Exemption--Ohio Terminal Ry., FD 35704
(STB served Jan. 11, 2013). As such, DCR states that its owners,
managers, and personnel are already familiar with the safety
regulations administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
DCR states that it will operate the Line in accordance with FRA
regulations.
DCR further explains that the concerns about bridge maintenance are
unwarranted. DCR states that NSR has maintained the bridges in full
compliance with FRA standards and safe operating practices. DCR notes
that,
[[Page 13041]]
although one of the bridges was closed for 30 days, this was for
routine maintenance and resulted from construction delays caused by
weather conditions. DCR adds that it has inspected the bridges and has
the knowledge and resources to maintain them.
As to concerns about wages and benefits, DCR asserts that it offers
some of the best wages and benefits of any employer on the Delmarva
Peninsula. DCR notes that it received more applications for employment
than there are available positions. It adds that it requires all its
employees to abide by all applicable safety rules and offers suitable
working conditions.
Discussion and Conclusions
Because DCR's lease and operation exemption has gone into effect,
SMART/TD's request will be treated as a petition to reopen and revoke
the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d).\3\ Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), an
exemption may be revoked, in whole or in part, if the Board finds that
regulation of the transaction is necessary to carry out the RTP of 49
U.S.C. 10101. Under 49 CFR 1115.3(b), the petition must state in detail
whether revocation is supported by material error, new evidence, or
substantially changed circumstances. See N.Y. Cent. Lines--Aban.
Exemption--in Montgomery & Schenectady Ctys., N.Y., AB 565 (Sub-No.
14X) (STB served Jan. 22, 2004). The party seeking revocation has the
burden of showing that regulation is necessary to carry out the RTP, 49
CFR 1121.4(f), and petitions to revoke must be based on reasonable,
specific concerns demonstrating that revocation of the exemption is
warranted and more detailed scrutiny of the transaction is necessary.
See Consol. Rail Corp.--Trackage Rights Exemption--Mo. Pac. R.R., FD
32662 (STB served June 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., BNSF Ry.--Trackage Rights Exemption--Union Pac.
R.R., FD 35601, slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Sept. 11, 2013); Watco
Holdings, Inc.--Acquis. of Control Exemption--Wis. & S. R.R., FD
35573, slip op. at 1-2 (STB served Mar. 22, 2012); Elk River R.R.--
Constr. & Operation Exemption--Clay & Kanawha Ctys., W.Va., FD
31989, slip op. at 1 n.3 (STB served Apr. 11, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, SMART/TD fails to establish that revocation of the exemption
is necessary to carry out the RTP. Although SMART/TD has cited the RTP
goals of operating without detriment to the public health and safety
(49 U.S.C. 10101(8)) and encouraging fair wages and suitable working
conditions (49 U.S.C. 10101(11)), it has not shown that regulation is
necessary to carry out these goals.
The Board takes safety concerns seriously; however, SMART/TD's
concerns here are vague and speculative and do not arise from any
demonstrated shortcomings specific to DCR. DCR has expressed a
commitment to abide by FRA regulations, and its parent, Carload, is
familiar with FRA's requirements. As to maintenance, DCR states that it
has already inspected the bridges and has explained the one extended
bridge closure cited by SMART/TD. Furthermore, NSR's contract with DCR
obligates DCR to comply with FRA standards of operation, to maintain
the tracks at standards specified by NSR, and to carry certain
insurance policies covering incidents that might occur while operating
the Line.
SMART/TD's concern about DCR's having fewer resources than NSR, the
Line's Class I owner, also does not warrant revocation. Class I
carriers routinely spin-off lines to newly formed Class III carriers,
and SMART/TD has not demonstrated that DCR will be any less prepared to
assume the responsibility to maintain and operate the Line that any
other new Class III carrier would be. Moreover, as DCR notes, its
parent company, Carload, is an experienced shortline operator. DCR
explains that Carload's railroads ``have strong safety records and
there have been no FRA or STB reported allegations that its shortline
employees have been treated unfairly or required to operate in unsafe
conditions;'' SMART/TD has offered no evidence to the contrary. SMART/
TD has also failed to show that the labor impact here is different
from, or greater than, the impacts typically associated with the
acquisition of a rail line by any new carrier.
For the foregoing reasons, SMART/TD has not shown that reopening
and revocation are supported by material error, new evidence, or
substantially changed circumstances, or that applying the Board's
regulation to the transaction is necessary to carry out the RTP.
Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to revoke DCR's exemption or
begin a revocation proceeding.
It is ordered:
1. SMART/TD's petition to revoke DCR's exemption is denied.
2. This decision is effective on its date of service.
Decided: March 1, 2017.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Raina S. Contee,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2017-04472 Filed 3-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
