Petition for Rulemaking; Railroad Performance Data Reporting, 14907-14908 [2019-07272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14907
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart—AA Missouri
2. In § 52.1320, paragraph (c), the
table is amended by revising the entry
for 10–6.180 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
Identification of Plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of
Missouri
*
10–6.180 ...........
*
Measurement of Emissions
of Air Contaminants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11/30/2018
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].
*
*
*
*
49 CFR Part 1250
[Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 5)]
SUMMARY:
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Petition for Rulemaking; Railroad
Performance Data Reporting
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Apr 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
*
Notification of commencement
of proceeding and request for
comments.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[FR Doc. 2019–07284 Filed 4–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
PO 00000
Surface Transportation Board.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) is opening a rulemaking
proceeding in response to a petition to
amend its railroad performance data
reporting rules. The Board does not rule
on the merits of the petition but requests
additional information regarding several
issues raised in the petition and reply.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
14908
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Comments addressing the
information requests are due by May 6,
2019. Replies are due by May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies
should reference Docket No. EP 724
(Sub-No. 5) and be submitted via the
Board’s e-filing format or in writing
addressed to: Chief, Section of
Administration, Office of Proceedings,
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001.
Any person using e-filing should attach
a document and otherwise comply with
the instructions found on the Board’s
website at www.stb.gov at the E-Filing
link.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Ziehm, (202) 245–0391. Assistance
for the hearing impaired is available
through Federal Relay Service at (800)
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 6, 2018, the American
Chemistry Council (ACC) filed a
petition for rulemaking 1 to amend the
Board’s railroad performance data
reporting rules at 49 CFR part 1250. The
rules, which became effective on March
21, 2017, require all Class I railroads
and the Chicago Transportation
Coordination Office, through its Class I
members, to report certain service
performance metrics on a weekly,
semiannual, and occasional basis. ACC
requests that the Board modify its rules
to: (1) Include chemical and plastics
(STCC 28) traffic as a distinct reporting
category for the ‘‘cars held’’ metric at 49
CFR 1250.2(a)(6); (2) extend the weekly
average terminal dwell time reporting
requirement at 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(2) to
include all Class I, terminal, and
switching carriers at the Chicago
gateway; and (3) extend the same types
of terminal reporting requirements for
the Chicago gateway (as extended by
ACC’s second request) to the New
Orleans, East St. Louis, and Memphis
gateways (together, Mississippi
Gateways). (ACC Pet. 1.) Among other
things, ACC argues that shippers benefit
directly from railroad performance data
reported under the Board’s existing
rules and its members use that data to
identify and monitor service issues,
anticipate and prepare for the impacts
those issues may have as they become
more severe, spot service trends that
affect railcar cycle times, and mitigate
the impact of cycle time variability. (Id.
at 4.) ACC states that access to
performance data also enables its
members to have collaborative
discussions with carriers and allows
shippers to suggest service adjustments
to routes, fleet sizes, and sourcing
locations as viable solutions. (Id.)
On January 28, 2019, the Association
of American Railroads (AAR) filed a
reply in opposition to ACC’s petition,
arguing that additional commodityspecific reporting should not be
adopted, that ACC failed to demonstrate
the public benefit of additional Chicago
reporting, and that joint Mississippi
Gateways information is unnecessary
and would be overly burdensome.
Among other things, AAR argues that
continuous changes to the Board’s
performance reporting rules would
impose ongoing costs on railroads,
which would need to make
programming changes to their systems
to enable compliance. (AAR Reply 3; see
also id. (quoting AAR Reply, Jan. 7,
2018, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues—
Performance Data Reporting, EP 724
(Sub-No. 4) (stating that ‘‘any further
changes to the list of required STCC
codes [relating to fertilizer] for reporting
will necessitate additional programming
changes and impose other costs on rail
carriers.’’)).) Further, with respect to the
Mississippi Gateways reporting, AAR
states, because the Mississippi Gateways
do not have the equivalent of the
Chicago Transportation Coordination
Office, any joint service report would
need to be built from the ground up
from data from individual carriers and
would be burdensome to undertake;
AAR states the burden is not justified.
(AAR Reply 6.)
The Board will open a rulemaking
proceeding because ACC’s petition
warrants further consideration. At this
time, the Board is not making a
determination regarding the merits of
ACC’s specific proposals to amend 49
CFR part 1250, but rather will direct the
parties to provide additional
information regarding ACC’s proposed
amendments to the rules.
ACC will be directed to elaborate on
shippers’ experiences using
performance data reported under the
existing rules to inform their business
and supply chain decision-making, in
particular to mitigate rail service
problems. The Board seeks specific
examples of these situations. ACC will
also be directed to explain how the
additional data that it proposes to be
reported would materially enhance
shippers’ business and supply chain
decision-making with reference to
specific scenarios or real-world
circumstances.2 And, if possible, ACC
should quantify the value of additional
reporting.
1 On December 12, 2018, ACC filed an errata to
its petition.
2 ACC need not disclose any confidential shipper
information.
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Apr 11, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
The Board will also direct ACC to
provide additional data supporting its
selection of the Mississippi Gateways,
relative to other terminal locations, both
in terms of their significance to the
overall rail network and specifically to
chemical traffic shipments. Further, the
Board requests ACC provide an
explanation in greater detail of why the
existing performance data reported
pursuant to § 1250.2(a)(2) are
insufficient indicators as to rail
performance across the network,
including at the Mississippi Gateways.
AAR will be directed to explain in
greater detail (1) the ‘‘programming
changes’’ railroads would need to make
to comply with the proposed reporting
requirements; (2) the ‘‘other costs’’ that
would be associated with complying
with the proposed reporting
requirements; and (3) the specific
process individual carriers would need
to undertake to build ‘‘from the ground
up data’’ to compile a joint service
report at each proposed Mississippi
Gateway location. The Board directs
AAR to provide data that further
describes or quantifies the ‘‘ongoing
costs’’ and ‘‘burden’’ of the changes.
The Board will direct the parties to
provide the information described above
by May 6, 2019. Any interested
stakeholders may also file comments
addressing the information requests
described above by May 6, 2019. Replies
will be due by May 20, 2019.
It is ordered:
1. ACC’s petition for rulemaking is
granted to the extent discussed above.
2. The parties are directed to provide
the information described above by May
6, 2019. Other initial comments are also
due by May 6, 2019.
3. Replies are due by May 20, 2019.
4. This decision is effective on its date
of service.
Decided: April 5, 2019.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman,
Fuchs, and Oberman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019–07272 Filed 4–11–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14907-14908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07272]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1250
[Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 5)]
Petition for Rulemaking; Railroad Performance Data Reporting
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notification of commencement of proceeding and request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is opening a
rulemaking proceeding in response to a petition to amend its railroad
performance data reporting rules. The Board does not rule on the merits
of the petition but requests additional information regarding several
issues raised in the petition and reply.
[[Page 14908]]
DATES: Comments addressing the information requests are due by May 6,
2019. Replies are due by May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies should reference Docket No. EP 724
(Sub-No. 5) and be submitted via the Board's e-filing format or in
writing addressed to: Chief, Section of Administration, Office of
Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington,
DC 20423-0001. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and
otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's website at
www.stb.gov at the E-Filing link.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Ziehm, (202) 245-0391. Assistance
for the hearing impaired is available through Federal Relay Service at
(800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 6, 2018, the American Chemistry
Council (ACC) filed a petition for rulemaking \1\ to amend the Board's
railroad performance data reporting rules at 49 CFR part 1250. The
rules, which became effective on March 21, 2017, require all Class I
railroads and the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office, through
its Class I members, to report certain service performance metrics on a
weekly, semiannual, and occasional basis. ACC requests that the Board
modify its rules to: (1) Include chemical and plastics (STCC 28)
traffic as a distinct reporting category for the ``cars held'' metric
at 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(6); (2) extend the weekly average terminal dwell
time reporting requirement at 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(2) to include all Class
I, terminal, and switching carriers at the Chicago gateway; and (3)
extend the same types of terminal reporting requirements for the
Chicago gateway (as extended by ACC's second request) to the New
Orleans, East St. Louis, and Memphis gateways (together, Mississippi
Gateways). (ACC Pet. 1.) Among other things, ACC argues that shippers
benefit directly from railroad performance data reported under the
Board's existing rules and its members use that data to identify and
monitor service issues, anticipate and prepare for the impacts those
issues may have as they become more severe, spot service trends that
affect railcar cycle times, and mitigate the impact of cycle time
variability. (Id. at 4.) ACC states that access to performance data
also enables its members to have collaborative discussions with
carriers and allows shippers to suggest service adjustments to routes,
fleet sizes, and sourcing locations as viable solutions. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 12, 2018, ACC filed an errata to its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 28, 2019, the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
filed a reply in opposition to ACC's petition, arguing that additional
commodity-specific reporting should not be adopted, that ACC failed to
demonstrate the public benefit of additional Chicago reporting, and
that joint Mississippi Gateways information is unnecessary and would be
overly burdensome. Among other things, AAR argues that continuous
changes to the Board's performance reporting rules would impose ongoing
costs on railroads, which would need to make programming changes to
their systems to enable compliance. (AAR Reply 3; see also id. (quoting
AAR Reply, Jan. 7, 2018, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--Performance Data
Reporting, EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (stating that ``any further changes to
the list of required STCC codes [relating to fertilizer] for reporting
will necessitate additional programming changes and impose other costs
on rail carriers.'')).) Further, with respect to the Mississippi
Gateways reporting, AAR states, because the Mississippi Gateways do not
have the equivalent of the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office,
any joint service report would need to be built from the ground up from
data from individual carriers and would be burdensome to undertake; AAR
states the burden is not justified. (AAR Reply 6.)
The Board will open a rulemaking proceeding because ACC's petition
warrants further consideration. At this time, the Board is not making a
determination regarding the merits of ACC's specific proposals to amend
49 CFR part 1250, but rather will direct the parties to provide
additional information regarding ACC's proposed amendments to the
rules.
ACC will be directed to elaborate on shippers' experiences using
performance data reported under the existing rules to inform their
business and supply chain decision-making, in particular to mitigate
rail service problems. The Board seeks specific examples of these
situations. ACC will also be directed to explain how the additional
data that it proposes to be reported would materially enhance shippers'
business and supply chain decision-making with reference to specific
scenarios or real-world circumstances.\2\ And, if possible, ACC should
quantify the value of additional reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ACC need not disclose any confidential shipper information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board will also direct ACC to provide additional data
supporting its selection of the Mississippi Gateways, relative to other
terminal locations, both in terms of their significance to the overall
rail network and specifically to chemical traffic shipments. Further,
the Board requests ACC provide an explanation in greater detail of why
the existing performance data reported pursuant to Sec. 1250.2(a)(2)
are insufficient indicators as to rail performance across the network,
including at the Mississippi Gateways.
AAR will be directed to explain in greater detail (1) the
``programming changes'' railroads would need to make to comply with the
proposed reporting requirements; (2) the ``other costs'' that would be
associated with complying with the proposed reporting requirements; and
(3) the specific process individual carriers would need to undertake to
build ``from the ground up data'' to compile a joint service report at
each proposed Mississippi Gateway location. The Board directs AAR to
provide data that further describes or quantifies the ``ongoing costs''
and ``burden'' of the changes.
The Board will direct the parties to provide the information
described above by May 6, 2019. Any interested stakeholders may also
file comments addressing the information requests described above by
May 6, 2019. Replies will be due by May 20, 2019.
It is ordered:
1. ACC's petition for rulemaking is granted to the extent discussed
above.
2. The parties are directed to provide the information described
above by May 6, 2019. Other initial comments are also due by May 6,
2019.
3. Replies are due by May 20, 2019.
4. This decision is effective on its date of service.
Decided: April 5, 2019.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-07272 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
