Waybill Sample Reporting, 54936-54942 [2020-19195]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54936
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
*
*
CA ...................................................
*
*
Orange County North Basin ...........
Orange County.
*
*
DE ...................................................
*
*
Blades Groundwater .......................
Blades.
*
*
KS ...................................................
*
*
Caney Residential Yards ................
Caney.
*
*
MN ...................................................
*
*
Highway 100 and County Road 3
Groundwater Plume.
*
*
OK ...................................................
*
*
Henryetta Iron and Metal ................
Henryetta.
*
*
SC ...................................................
*
*
Clearwater Finishing .......................
Clearwater.
*
*
*
Notes a
City/county
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
St. Louis Park and Edina.
*
A
= Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater
than or equal to 28.50).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–19172 Filed 9–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1244
[EP 385 (Sub-No. 8)]
Waybill Sample Reporting
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) adopts a final rule that
amends its Waybill Sample data
collection regulations by increasing the
sampling rates of certain nonintermodal carload shipments,
specifying separate sampling strata and
rates for intermodal shipments, and
eliminating the manual system for
reporting waybill data.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
1, 2021. Waybill reporting on or after
the effective date must comply with the
final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathon Binet at (202) 245–0368.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A waybill
is a ‘‘document or instrument prepared
from the bill of lading contract or
shipper’s instructions as to the
disposition of the freight, and [is] used
by the railroad(s) involved as the
authority to move the shipment and as
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
the basis for determining the freight
charges and interline settlements.’’ 49
CFR 1244.1(c). Among other things, a
waybill contains the following data: (1)
The originating and terminating freight
stations; (2) the railroads participating
in the movement; (3) the points of all
railroad interchanges; (4) the number
and type of cars; (5) the car initial and
number; (6) the movement weight in
hundredweight; (7) the commodity; and
(8) the freight revenue.
A railroad is required to file with the
Board a sample of its waybill data for all
line-haul revenue waybills terminated
on its lines in the United States,1 if the
railroad: (a) Terminated at least 4,500
revenue carloads in any of the three
preceding years, or (b) terminated at
least 5% of the revenue carloads
terminating in any state in any of the
three preceding years. 49 CFR 1244.2(a).
The number of waybills that a railroad
is required to file (i.e., the sampling rate)
is set forth at current 49 CFR 1244.4(b)
and (c), and varies based on the number
of carloads on the waybill, as shown in
Table 1 below.2
1 A railroad moving traffic on the U.S. rail system
to the Canadian or Mexican border is required to
‘‘include a representative sample of such
international export traffic in the Waybill Sample.’’
49 CFR 1244.3(c).
2 The Board’s regulations set forth different
sampling rates for computerized and manual
systems of reporting. See 49 CFR 1244.4(b)–(c).
Under the manual system, railroads submit Waybill
Sample data through authenticated copies of a
sample of audited revenue waybills instead of using
a computerized system. Id. section 1244.4(a). The
manual system of reporting is not currently used by
any railroads and, as discussed further below, this
final rule eliminates it.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
TABLE 1—CURRENT WAYBILL
SAMPLING RATES
[Computerized System of Reporting]
Number of carloads
on waybill\
1 to 2 ....................................
3 to 15 ..................................
16 to 60 ................................
61 to 100 ..............................
101 and over ........................
Sample rate 3
1/40
1/12
1/4
1/3
1/2
The Board creates an aggregate
compilation of the sampled waybills of
all reporting carriers, referred to as the
Waybill Sample. First collected in 1946
by the Board’s predecessor,4 the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
the Waybill Sample is the Board’s
principal source of data about freight
rail shipments. It has broad application
in, among other things, rate cases, the
development of costing systems,
productivity studies, exemption
decisions, and analyses of industry
trends. The Waybill Sample is also used
by other Federal agencies, state and
local government agencies, the
transportation industry, shippers,
research organizations, universities, and
3 The column showing the sample rate indicates
the fraction of the total number of waybills within
each stratum that must be submitted (e.g., for
waybills of one to two carloads, the railroad must
submit one out of every 40 waybills).
4 See Bureau of Transp. Econ. & Stat., Interstate
Com. Comm’n, Statement No. 543, Waybill
Statistics their History & Uses 15, 19, 40 (1954);
Waybill Analysis of Transp. of Prop.—R.Rs., 364
I.C.C. 928, 929 (1981) (‘‘Since 1946, the Interstate
Commerce Commission has collected a continuous
sample of carload waybills for railroads terminating
shipments.’’).
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
others that have a need for rail shipment
data. Because some of the submitted
waybill data is commercially sensitive,
the Board’s regulations place limitations
on the release and use of confidential
Waybill Sample data. See 49 CFR
1244.9; see also 49 U.S.C. 11904.5
Procedural Background
As described more fully in the notice
of proposed rulemaking in this
proceeding, the Board’s Rate Reform
Task Force (RRTF) issued a report on
April 25, 2019 (RRTF Report) 6
recommending, among other things, that
the Board change the sampling rates for
its Waybill Sample. RRTF Report 14,
47–49; Waybill Sample Reporting
(NPRM), EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at
2 (STB served Nov. 29, 2019). After
considering the recommendations in the
RRTF Report and the overall utility of
the current Waybill Sample, in the
NPRM issued on November 29, 2019,
the Board proposed a simplified waybill
sampling rate for non-intermodal
carload shipments and separate waybill
sampling strata and rates for intermodal
shipments, as shown in Table 2 below.
See NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op.
at 6–8; 84 FR 65768, 65770–71 (Nov. 29,
2019).
TABLE 2—PROPOSED WAYBILL
SAMPLING RATES
[Computerized System of Reporting]
Number of non-intermodal
carloads on waybill
Sample rate
1 to 2 ....................................
3 to 15 ..................................
16 to 60 ................................
61 to 100 ..............................
101 and over ........................
Number of intermodal trailer/
container units on waybill
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
Sample rate
1 to 2 ....................................
3 and over ............................
1/40
1/5
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
As explained in the NPRM, EP 385
(Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 4, the Board
reasoned that a net increase in sample
size would provide more
comprehensive information to the Board
and other users of Waybill Sample data
in a variety of contexts, such as
5 Any grant of access to confidential Waybill
Sample data requires the requestor to execute a
confidentiality agreement before receiving the data.
See 49 CFR 1244.9(a)–(e). In addition to the
confidential Waybill Sample, the Board also
generates a Public Use Waybill File that includes
only non-confidential data. See 49 CFR
1244.9(b)(5).
6 The RRTF Report was posted on the Board’s
website on April 29, 2019, and can be accessed at
https://www.stb.gov/stb/rail/Rate_Reform_Task_
Force_Report.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
exemption decisions, stratification
reports, traffic volume and rate studies,
Board-initiated investigations, certain
rate cases, and any other waybill datarelated analysis the Board currently
performs or might seek to perform in the
future. The Board also explained that
the added number of observations in the
Waybill Sample would likely allow it to
avoid redacting, for confidentiality
reasons, as many results from some of
the Board’s routine analysis published
on its website (e.g., the Standard
Transportation Commodity Code 7
stratification report). Id. at 4–5. In
addition, because it currently receives
monthly and quarterly waybill data
from reporting carriers, increasing the
sampling rate would provide the Board
with more observations in any given
month or quarter from which it could
draw meaningful insights throughout
the year. Id. at 5. The Board also
proposed that it should change the
sampling requirements so that a greater
portion of Waybill Sample data would
represent regulated traffic instead of
exempt traffic and stated that the
proposed changes would help address
the acknowledged shortcomings
concerning the scarcity of data in some
rate cases. Id. at 4–5, 8. The NPRM
stated that the proposed waybill
sampling rates would increase the
percentage of movement categories
containing at least 25 observations,7
suggesting that the proposed changes
would produce more movement
categories that have sufficient
representativeness. Id. at 5–6, 8–10, 8
n.18.
The Board received seven opening
comments on the NPRM from the
following organizations: American Fuel
& Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM);
Association of American Railroads
(AAR); CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT); National Grain and Feed
Association (NGFA); RSI Logistics, Inc.
(RSI Logistics); U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA); and Western Coal
Traffic League (WCTL). The Board
received one reply comment, from AAR.
Final Rule
After considering the comments, the
Board will adopt the rule proposed in
the NPRM, with certain modifications.
Below, the Board addresses the
comments and discusses the
7 According to the Central Limit Theorem, once
a sample has sufficient observations, it is
considered to be normally distributed and can be
used to approximate the mean and variance of the
population from which it was sampled. Generally,
around 25 or 30 observations is considered to be
enough for those approximations. See NPRM, EP
385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 5 n.10 (citing Robert V.
Hogg et al., Probability and Statistical Inference 202
(9th ed. 2015)).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54937
modifications being adopted in the final
rule. The text of the final rule is below.
A. Sampling Rates and Strata
The comments received generally
underscore the importance of the
Waybill Sample as a critical source of
information about the rail industry. For
example, USDA notes that the Waybill
Sample ‘‘is the most detailed and
comprehensive data the federal
government currently has on rail freight
movements, making it instrumental in
identifying trends and issues in the
industry.’’ (USDA Comment 2.) RSI
Logistics similarly states that the
Waybill Sample ‘‘provides valuable
insight into the rail marketplace.’’ (RSI
Logistics Comment 1.) Due to the
Waybill Sample’s utility, most
commenters support the Board’s efforts
to increase the quantity of waybill data
collected through modified sampling
rates. (AAR Comment 1; AFPM
Comment 4; CSXT Comment 1; RSI
Logistics Comment 1; USDA Comment
2, 4.) Although some commenters
question the potential benefits of the
proposed changes, suggest
modifications to the proposed sampling
rates, or urge the Board to be watchful
for unintended effects, (see AAR
Comment 1; NGFA Comment 4–5;
WCTL Comment 4–6), no commenter
opposes the Board’s effort to expand the
quantity of waybill data collected.
Regarding suggested modifications to
the proposed rule, AAR cautions against
the Board’s proposal to reduce the data
collected for larger, non-intermodal
shipments. In particular, AAR notes that
‘‘non-coal larger blocks of shipments are
more likely to have greater variance in
their characteristics, including in size,
frequency, and origin-destination pairs’’
and claims that much of this detail
could be lost as a result of the proposed
reduction in the sampling rates for these
strata. (AAR Comment 3.) AAR also
states that ‘‘there is no reason to suspect
that shipments in the larger carload
strata would be any less relevant to the
small rate case process[,]’’ which would
make ‘‘the need for more observations
[of larger shipments] . . . just as
important as for the smaller carload
strata.’’ (Id.) Based on these concerns,
AAR argues that ‘‘[t]he Board’s proposal
to reduce the number of samples for the
larger carload strata is at odds with the
overarching goal of broadening access to
relief and addressing the scarcity of data
concerns expressed by the Board.’’ (Id.)
AAR therefore asks the Board to
maintain the current sampling rates for
non-intermodal shipments with 16 or
more carloads. (AAR Comment 1; AAR
Reply 1.) CSXT likewise asks the Board
to maintain the sampling rates for non-
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
54938
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
intermodal shipments with 16 or more
carloads. (CSXT Comment 1 n.1.)
After considering the comments from
AAR and CSXT, the Board concludes
that the proposed decrease in the
sampling rates for larger, nonintermodal shipments should not be
adopted. The Board proposed reducing
the sampling rates for non-intermodal
shipments with 16 or more carloads per
waybill to match the proposed sampling
rates for non-intermodal shipments with
15 or fewer carloads as a way of
simplifying the sampling rates while
still achieving a net increase in the nonintermodal shipment data collected. The
commenters’ arguments concerning the
variable characteristics of larger, noncoal shipments and the relevance of
larger shipments to the small rate case
process support the conclusion that the
Waybill Sample would lose robustness
for shipments of 16 or more carloads if
the proposal were implemented.
Although one of the goals of the Board’s
proposal was to simplify sampling rates,
the Board also seeks to maintain a
robust dataset that is of use to the
agency and stakeholders. As noted in
the NPRM, a greater number of
observations would allow for additional
or more granular factors to compare
movements while maintaining
representativeness. This applies to
shipments of 16 or more carloads and
justifies maintaining the current (more
frequent) sampling rates for those
carload shipments. Therefore, the Board
will maintain the current sampling rates
for non-intermodal shipments with 16
or more carloads, as suggested by AAR
and CSXT.
USDA asks the Board to consider
removing the stratification process
altogether and collecting 100% of the
waybill population data, ‘‘postulat[ing]’’
that if the ICC had possessed current
technology at its disposal ‘‘it would not
have needed to undertake the statistical
design process that led to the creation
of today’s [Waybill Sample].’’ (USDA
Comment 2.) USDA contends that
collecting 100% of the waybill
population should not be an additional
burden for the railroads or the Board.
(Id. at 2–3.) USDA argues alternatively
that if 100% of the population data
cannot be collected, the Board should
‘‘significantly increase the sample size
more than proposed.’’ (Id. at 3.)
Similarly, NGFA asks the Board to
explore the feasibility of expanding to
100% data collection for nonintermodal carload traffic. (NGFA
Comment 4.) In response, AAR raises
various concerns about 100% data
sampling, including regarding securitysensitive information and the risk of
disclosure of confidential information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
(AAR Reply 4–5.) AAR instead argues
that the Board’s proposal, as modified to
maintain the non-intermodal sampling
rates for larger shipments, ‘‘strikes a
balanced approach to obtaining more
information, while preserving customer
anonymity.’’ (Id. at 5).
The Board will not pursue 100%
waybill data collection at this time,
although it does not foreclose the
possibility of doing so in the future.
While the arguments in favor of 100%
collection may have merit, the Board
expects the increase in the sample
adopted in this final rule will achieve
the goals of the NPRM, and the Board
has not identified any implementation
or data management issues that could
delay such improvements. As a result,
the advantages of increased sampling
will be captured in the 2021 reporting
year with sufficient time for carriers to
adjust to the new requirements. In
contrast, pursuing a 100% waybill
collection at this stage of the rulemaking
proceeding would delay implementing
the important, incremental
improvements to the waybill collection
that will be achieved here. Further,
prior to removing the sampling
framework altogether, the Board,
through notice and comment, would
need to fully assess the utility of the
collection and weigh that against any
identified implementation or data
management issues.
As an alternative to 100% data
sampling, some commenters asked the
Board to further stratify the collected
waybill data based on additional
shipment variables, such as the railroad
involved in the movement, the distance
of the movement, the commodity
transported, and the geographic region
of the movement. (NGFA Comment 4;
USDA Comment 3–4.) Beyond shipment
data, some commenters suggest
collecting waybill data based on
performance variables related to service
quality, demurrage, and accessorial
charges. (AFPM Comment 4–5; USDA
Comment 4.) In response, AAR argues
that ‘‘these suggestions fail to recognize
the nature and purpose of the waybill as
a commercial document’’ and
‘‘[r]equiring additional, unrelated data
to be included in waybills would
require changes to industry practice and
pose significant challenges.’’ (AAR
Reply 2–3.)
The Board will not pursue the further
stratification by additional shipment
variables or the addition of performance
variables to waybill data collection at
this time. The Board already collects
certain performance data, albeit not on
a shipment basis, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 1250. See, e.g., Pet. for Rulemaking
to Amend 49 CFR part 1250, EP 724
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(Sub-No. 5), slip op. at 3–5 (STB served
May 21, 2020). Similarly, the Board
recognizes the importance of monitoring
the application of demurrage and
accessorial rules and charges, which is
why it initiated several related
proceedings. See, e.g., Oversight
Hearing on Demurrage & Accessorial
Charges, Docket No. EP 754; Policy
Statement on Demurrage & Accessorial
Rules & Charges, Docket No. EP 757;
Demurrage Billing Requirements, Docket
No. EP 759. Because the Board has
received public input on the proposals
in the NPRM, it can implement these
changes for the 2021 reporting year with
sufficient time for carriers to adjust to
the new regulations, whereas pursuing
further stratification beyond what is
proposed in the NPRM, or adding
performance data that was not proposed
in the NPRM, could delay
improvements to the Waybill Sample
until the 2022 reporting year. Prior to
considering any possible further
stratification or adding performance
data, the Board, through notice and
comment, would need to assess, among
other things, the benefits of such
changes against any potential technical
challenges.
Some commenters ask the Board to
monitor closely the effect of
implemented changes for any
unintended consequences, (NGFA
Comment 5), or to maintain a parallel
Waybill Sample based on the current
methodology for at least two years
(WCTL Comment 5–6). In response,
AAR states that ‘‘[t]he Board can modify
its processes to address anomalies or
unintended consequences if they arise.’’
(AAR Reply 6.) The Board rejects
WCTL’s suggestion that the Board
maintain a parallel Waybill Sample
because, compared to current
regulations, the final rule’s waybill
sampling rates, which have been
modified from the NPRM, are either
greater or the same for each stratified
category of non-intermodal carload
shipments and will have their
expansion factors adjusted accordingly;
as such, there is no longer any basis for
concern that the Board’s Waybill
Sample would become less
representative for certain nonintermodal carload shipments.8 As a
8 Under 49 CFR 1090.2, rail and highway traileron-flatcar/container-on-flatcar (TOFC/COFC)
service—which generally covers intermodal
shipments—is exempt from the requirements of 49
U.S.C. subtitle IV, regardless of the type, affiliation,
or ownership of the carrier performing the highway
portion of the service. Although the final rule
reduces the sampling rates for larger intermodal
shipments, the sampling rates adopted here will
still produce a representative sample of intermodal
shipments. See NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op.
at 7 (explaining how sampling intermodal
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
result, increasing the sampling rates
would not affect any analyses that are
based on a representation of the entire
population of waybill shipments. The
Board will continue to monitor the
waybill dataset for anomalies or
unintended effects, as it does in the
ordinary course.
RSI Logistics suggests that the Board
should require reporting by ‘‘holding
companies’’ consisting ‘‘of multiple
Class II or III railroads’’ if their traffic
volume otherwise meets the reporting
threshold. (RSI Logistics Comment 1.)
The Board declines to make this change.
A change to the applicability provisions
of 49 CFR 1244.2 is beyond the scope
of this proceeding, which focuses on
adjustments to the sampling rates and
strata.9
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
B. Waybill Record Order
The Board’s standards and format
guidance for the waybill collection is
currently found in Statement No. 81–1,
Procedure for Sampling Waybill Records
by Computer (2009 edition),10 and
currently provides that submitted
waybills may be listed in any order.
USDA comments that ‘‘[u]nder
systematic sampling, order is an
important consideration to account for
patterns in the frame that may
correspond to the skip interval,’’ and
suggests that the Board ‘‘either specify
an order, use a random ordering, or even
use a simple random sample rather than
‘any order,’ in order to avoid potential
sampling bias.’’ (USDA Comment 3 n.1.)
The Board has no evidence suggesting
that the Waybill Sample’s unspecified
sampling order has resulted in sampling
bias. Moreover, the use of stratification
is designed to reduce sampling bias. By
sampling within certain strata, the
sample is guaranteed to capture records
of larger shipments that move less
frequently. In addition, USDA’s
recommendation to use a random order
is already addressed by using a different
shipments separately would be appropriate in light
of intermodal billing practices and would avoid
over-sampling).
9 RSI Logistics also requests that the Waybill
Sample be published ‘‘in a timelier manner’’
because delay in the release of the data ‘‘reduces the
value of some of the information.’’ (RSI Logistics
Comment 1.) Publishing the annual Waybill Sample
requires compiling the waybill data, analyzing it for
potential issues, and correcting any issues
identified, and is a process that cannot begin until
the end of each calendar year. The Board will
continue to publish the Waybill Sample as
promptly as possible while ensuring the reliability
of the published data.
10 The current edition of Statement No. 81–1 is
posted on the Board’s website and can be accessed
by selecting the ‘‘Economic Data’’ quick link, then
selecting the ‘‘Carload Waybill Sample’’ page link,
and then selecting the ‘‘Procedure for Sampling
Waybill Records by Computer’’ link under the
‘‘Public Use Waybill Samples’’ section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
random start for each of the four
subsamples within each stratum.
Accordingly, the Board will not adopt
USDA’s recommendations.
C. Manual System of Reporting
In the NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip
op. at 3 n.5, the Board stated that
‘‘parties may provide comments on
whether the manual system [for
reporting waybill data] should be
eliminated given its current lack of
use.’’ In response, NGFA states that the
Board ‘‘should deem manually
submitted waybills to be obsolete and
rule that they no longer are a
permissible way for carriers to submit
such data.’’ (NGFA Comment 5.) No
other commenter addressed this issue,
and the Board notes that no smaller
carriers commented in this proceeding.
Due to its current lack of use and the
absence of support for its continuation,
the Board sees no need to maintain the
regulatory provision for manual
reporting. Therefore, the Board will
eliminate the manual system for
reporting waybill data in the final rule
and remove references to the manual
system at sections 1244.4, 1244.5,
1244.6, and 1244.7.
D. Effective Date
CSXT asks the Board to provide a
minimum of 90 days between the
service date and the effective date of the
final rule to give carriers sufficient time
to make the programming changes
necessary to comply with the revised
reporting requirements. (CSXT
Comment 3.) CSXT also requests that
the Board limit, to the extent possible,
revisions to Statement No. 81–1, and
that if ‘‘extensive procedural changes’’
to Statement No. 81–1 are made, an
additional 60 days be added to the 90
days it requested to implement the
changes proposed in the NPRM. (Id. at
2–3.) The Board is sensitive to the
practicalities surrounding any revision
of the waybill reporting requirements.
As a result, the Board will require
reporting under the final rule to begin
on January 1, 2021, which will give
reporting carriers sufficient time to
prepare for the revised requirements.11
Prior to that time (i.e., for all 2020
waybill reportings), carriers should
continue to report according to the
current sampling requirements.
* * *
For the reasons discussed above, after
consideration of all the comments
11 The Board’s Office of Economics has revised
Statement No. 81–1 to account for the changes
adopted in this final rule. The revised edition is
attached as Appendix B in the served decision,
which is available to the public on the Board’s
website.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54939
received, the Board is adopting a final
rule to amend its regulations to specify
separate waybill sampling strata for
intermodal and non-intermodal
shipments and establish revised waybill
sampling rates as shown in Table 3,
below.
TABLE 3—FINAL RULE WAYBILL
SAMPLING RATES
Number of non-intermodal
carloads on waybill
1 to 2 ....................................
3 to 15 ..................................
16 to 60 ................................
61 to 100 ..............................
101 and over ........................
Number of intermodal trailer/
container units on waybill
1 to 2 ....................................
3 and over ............................
Sample rate
1/5
1/5
1/4
1/3
1/2
Sample rate
1/40
1/5
This rule is set out in full below and
will be codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
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.
Section 601–604. In its final rule, the
agency must either include a final
regulatory flexibility analysis, section
604(a), or certify that the final rule
would not have a ‘‘significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities,’’
section 605(b). Because the goal of the
RFA is to reduce the cost to small
entities of complying with federal
regulations, the RFA requires an agency
to perform a regulatory flexibility
analysis of small entity impacts only
when a rule directly regulates those
entities. In other words, the impact must
be a direct impact on small entities
‘‘whose conduct is circumscribed or
mandated’’ by the rule. White Eagle
Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th
Cir. 2009).
The Board certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that the final rule would not have
a significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small entities,
within the meaning of the RFA.12 Under
12 For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers
subject to Board jurisdiction, the Board defines a
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
Continued
03SER1
54940
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
the Board’s existing regulations, a
railroad is required to file Waybill
Sample data for all line-haul revenue
waybills terminated on its lines if: (a) It
terminated at least 4,500 revenue
carloads in any of the three preceding
years; or (b) it terminated at least 5% of
the revenue carloads terminating in any
state in any of the three preceding years.
49 CFR 1244.2. Under this criteria, 53
railroads are currently required to report
Waybill Sample data. Of these 53
railroads, the Board estimates that 36
are Class III rail carriers, and therefore
small businesses within the meaning of
the RFA. Of the 53 railroads required to
report Waybill Sample data, 45 railroads
currently use Railinc Corporation
(Railinc)—a wholly-owned information
technology subsidiary of the Association
of American Railroads—to sample their
waybills.13 Eight railroads currently
sample their own waybills.
For the railroads that submit their
waybills to Railinc for sampling, there
will be no additional burden or costs as
result of the changes adopted in the
final rule. These entities will continue
to submit all their waybills to Railinc,
which will then sample the data in
accordance with the Board’s revised
sampling rates. Because the Board
contracts with Railinc to sample
railroads’ waybills, the entities that use
Railinc to sample their waybills will
incur no additional costs from Railinc as
a result of the Board’s proposed
changes. Of the approximately 36 Class
III rail carriers, the Board estimates that
34 carriers fall into this category and
therefore will not incur any additional
burden or cost.
For the railroads that choose to
sample their own waybills, the final rule
will not result in a significant economic
impact. The purpose of the changes
adopted in the final rule is to create a
more robust Waybill Sample and result
in more comprehensive information
critical to the Board’s decision-making
and analyses. The final rule will
‘‘small business’’ as only including those rail
carriers classified as Class III rail carriers 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 rail carriers have
annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in
1991 dollars, or $40,384,263 or less when adjusted
for inflation using 2019 data. Class II carriers have
annual operating revenues of less than $250 million
in 1991 dollars, or $504,803,294 when adjusted for
inflation using 2019 data. The Board calculates the
revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the
railroad revenue thresholds in decisions and on its
website. 49 CFR 1201.1–1; Indexing the Annual
Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served
June 10, 2020).
13 Some railroads hire a third party to collect their
waybills. That third party then sends these waybills
to Railinc for sampling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
increase the rate at which the Board
samples certain railroad shipments and
appropriately differentiate based on
industry waybill practices for
intermodal shipments. These changes
will result in additional observations for
certain shipments but will not
significantly alter small entities’ current
practices for sampling their shipments.
Based on the total burden hours
described in the Paperwork Reduction
Act analysis below, the Board estimates
that, for railroads conducting their own
sampling, the change in reporting
procedures will result in a one-time
burden of approximately 150 hours per
railroad. Moreover, this impact will not
apply to a substantial number of small
entities, as the Board estimates that only
two of the approximately 36 Class III
rail carriers will incur this burden.
Accordingly, the Board certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final 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, Offices of
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In this proceeding, the Board is
modifying an existing collection of
information that was approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the collection of Waybill
Sample data (OMB Control No. 2140–
0015). In the NPRM, the Board sought
comments pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521 and OMB regulations at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(3) regarding: (1) Whether the
collection of information, as proposed
below to the NPRM, 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.
In the NPRM, the Board estimated that
the proposed requirements would add a
total one-time hourly burden of 640
hours (or approximately 213.3 hours per
year as amortized over three years)
because the railroads, in most cases,
will need to edit their software
programs to implement these changes.
The Board anticipated that, once the
burden of the one-time programming
changes is incurred, the annual burden
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
would remain the same as before this
modification. The Board received one
comment from CSXT, offering its
estimates for the one-time hourly
burden of actual time and costs of
collection of Waybill Sample data.14
The Board received five other comments
that generally pertained to the Board’s
burden analysis under the PRA.
In its comments, CSXT provides two
estimates for its one-time hourly burden
based on certain assumptions. CSXT
estimates a base one-time hourly burden
of 200 hours, assuming (i) the
introduction of two new strata, (ii) no
changes to the Kth interval and random
starts for the existing strata, and (iii) the
use of existing Kth interval and random
start tables for the two new strata. CSXT
estimates an additional one-time hourly
burden of 50 hours if new Kth intervals
and random start tables are necessary. It
also suggests that other procedural
changes are likely to have a similarly
additive effect. (CSXT Comment 2.)
CSXT’s estimates are helpful but
CSXT’s first assumption—that there will
be two new intermodal strata—is not
accurate because the final rule creates
only one new stratum. The first
intermodal stratum of ‘‘1 to 2’’ trailer/
container units remains unchanged from
the ‘‘1 to 2’’ carloads stratum currently
applied to intermodal shipments. The
second intermodal stratum of ‘‘3 and
over’’ trailer/container units is the only
new stratum. It combines the other four
carload strata currently applied to
intermodal shipments into one stratum
(i.e., ‘‘3 and over’’ trailer/container
units). Given that the number of new
strata assumed by CSXT is reduced by
half, its base estimate of 200 one-time
burden hours may also be reduced by
half, to 100 one-time burden hours.
CSXT’s second assumption is for an
additional one-time burden of 50 hours
if the Board intends to add new tables/
intervals for the new sampling rates of
the new strata. The new sampling rate
of ‘‘1/5 waybills’’ will require a new Kth
interval and random starts table, which
will use the same interval and start
table, even though it will be applied to
three different strata, (i.e., the first two
carload strata and the second
intermodal stratum). This will result in
an additional one-time burden of 50
hours, which the Board will add to the
14 In NPRM, Tables B–2, B–3 and B–4 show a total
annual burden of 774.6 hours. This incorporates the
annualized one-time hour burden of 213.3 hours
under the proposed rule and the agency’s most
recent estimated annual burden of 561.3 hours for
the extension request (due to a change in the
number of carriers submitting their own data, there
was a slight change from the annual burden of 555
hours approved in 2017).
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
adjusted base estimate of 100 hours, for
a total of 150 one-time burden hours.
The other comments received, which
generally pertain to the collection of this
information, provided no data estimates
or assumptions upon which to adjust
the burdens under the PRA. These other
comments pertain to those burdens in
two ways. First, USDA and RSI Logistics
propose general rule changes that would
impact the burdens here. (USDA
Comment 2–3; RSI Logistics Comment
1.) These comments are addressed above
and are not adopted in this rulemaking.
Second, AAR, AFPM, and NGFA point
to the estimated total one-time hour
burden (640 hours) under the PRA set
forth in the NPRM as indicating the
limited cost of the changes in the
proposed rule. (AAR Comment 4 n.4;
54941
AFPM Comment 4; NGFA Comment 4–
5.)
CSXT’s estimates, as adjusted above,
are reasonable. Therefore, the one-time
burden for each of the eight railroads
providing their own waybills will be
increased from a total of 80 hours to 150
hours for each railroad providing its
own waybills, as provided in the table
below.
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ONE-TIME HOUR BURDEN UNDER FINAL RULE FOR EACH RAILROAD PROVIDING ITS
OWN WAYBILLS
Total
one-time
hour burden
Railroads that conduct their own sampling and report monthly ............................................
Railroads that conduct their own sampling and report quarterly ..........................................
5
3
150
150
750
450
Total One-Time Hour Burden .........................................................................................
........................
..............................
1,200
The Board’s removal of the manual
filing option does not impact the PRA
analysis because the Board has not
received a manual filing in 10 years.
This request to modify and extend an
existing, approved collection will be
submitted to OMB for review as
required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11. The request
will address the comments discussed
above as part of the PRA approval
process.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801–808, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
designated this rule as non-major, as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
It is ordered:
1. The Board adopts the final rule set
forth in this decision. Notice of the final
rule will be published in the Federal
Register.
2. This decision is effective on
January 1, 2021.
3. A copy of this decision will be
served upon the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1244
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Estimated
one-time
hour burden
(per respondent)
Number of
respondents
Categories of respondents
Decided: August 26, 2020.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman,
Fuchs, and Oberman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Surface Transportation
Board amends part 1244 of title 49,
chapter X, of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
PART 1244—WAYBILL ANALYSIS OF
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY—
RAILROADS
1. The authority citation for part 1244
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144,
11145.
■
2. Revise § 1244.4 to read as follows:
§ 1244.4
Sampling of waybills.
(a) Reporting samples. Subject
railroads shall submit waybill sample
information as a computer file
containing specified information from a
sample waybill.
(1) Statement No. 81–1 contains
information on the standards and format
for the computer file.
(2) Effective January 1, 2021, and
thereafter, unless otherwise ordered, the
sampling rates are as follows:
Sample rate
1 to 2 ....................................
3 to 15 ..................................
16 to 60 ................................
61 to 100 ..............................
101 and over ........................
Number of intermodal trailer/
container units on waybill
1/5
1/5
1/4
1/3
1/2
Sample rate
1 to 2 ....................................
3 and over ............................
1/40
1/5
(b) Controls and Annual Counts. (1)
Each subject railroad shall maintain a
control procedure to ensure complete
and accurate reporting for the waybill
sampling. All pertinent waybill data
shall be included on hard copy waybill
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3. Amend § 1244.5 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 1244.5
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)
Number of non-intermodal
carloads on waybill
submissions including inbound
references for transit waybills. All such
pertinent waybill data shall be legible.
(2) All subject railroads shall maintain
a record of the number of line-haul
revenue carloads that terminated on
their line in a calendar year and shall
furnish this number when requested by
the Board.
(3) All subject railroads shall furnish
the Board the control counts and file
specification information as required by
Statement No. 81–1.
(4) Certification by a responsible
officer of the subject railroad as to the
completeness and accuracy of sample
shall be made once a year in accordance
with the instructions on the Transmittal
Form OPAD–1.
Date of filing.
(a) The reporting period for which
subject railroads submit waybill sample
information shall be the audit
(accounting) month except that subject
railroads may submit waybill sample
information quarterly as specified in
Statement No. 81–1.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Subject railroads shall complete
the Transmittal Form OPAD–1 to
accompany each waybill file
submission.
■ 4. Revise § 1244.6 to read as follows:
§ 1244.6
Retention of files.
(a) Subject railroads shall retain the
underlying hard copy waybills or
facsimiles capable of producing legible
copies, which shall be complete
including inbound references for transit
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
54942
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 172 / Thursday, September 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
waybills, for a minimum period of four
years.
(b) This file of retained waybills shall
be maintained in such a manner that
railroads may readily retrieve waybill
copies using the waybill identifier code
as shown on the submitted waybill
record.
■ 5. Amend § 1244.7 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1244.7
Special studies.
(a) Although routine submission of
hard copy waybills is not required, the
Board may order railroads to submit
hard copies of the underlying waybills
for special studies.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–19195 Filed 9–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket Nos. 090206140–91081–03 and
120405260–4258–02; RTID 0648–XA455]
Revised Reporting Requirements Due
to Catastrophic Conditions for Federal
Seafood Dealers and Individual Fishing
Quota Dealers in Portions of Louisiana
and Texas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; determination
of catastrophic conditions.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the individual
fishing quota (IFQ) and Federal dealer
reporting programs specific to the
commercial reef fish fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico (Gulf) and the coastal
migratory pelagic (CMP) fisheries in the
Gulf, the Regional Administrator (RA),
Southeast Region, NMFS has
determined that Hurricane Laura has
caused catastrophic conditions in the
Gulf for certain Louisiana parishes and
Texas counties. This temporary rule
authorizes any dealer in the affected
area described in this temporary rule
who does not have access to electronic
reporting to delay reporting of trip
tickets to NMFS and authorizes IFQ
dealers within the affected area to use
paper-based forms, if necessary, for
basic required administrative functions,
e.g., landing transactions. This
temporary rule is intended to facilitate
continuation of IFQ and dealer reporting
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Sep 02, 2020
Jkt 250001
operations during the period of
catastrophic conditions.
The RA is authorizing Federal
dealers and IFQ dealers in the affected
area to use revised reporting methods
from August 31, 2020, through October
5, 2020.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Britni LaVine, telephone 727–551–5766.
IFQ Customer Service, telephone: 866–
425–7627, fax: 727–824–5308, email:
SER-IFQ.Support@noaa.gov. For Federal
dealer reporting, Fisheries Monitoring
Branch, telephone: 305–361–4581.
The reef
fish fishery of the Gulf is managed
under the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) for Reef Fish Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico, prepared by the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Gulf Council). The CMP fishery is
managed under the FMP for CMP
Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic Region, prepared by the Gulf
Council and South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. Both FMPs are
implemented through regulations at 50
CFR part 622 under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Generic Dealer Amendment
established Federal dealer reporting
requirements for federally permitted
dealers in the Gulf and South Atlantic
(79 FR 19490; April 9, 2014).
Amendment 26 to the FMP established
an IFQ program for the commercial red
snapper component of the Gulf reef fish
fishery (71 FR 67447; November 22,
2006). Amendment 29 to the FMP
established an IFQ program for the
commercial grouper and tilefish
components of the Gulf reef fish fishery
(74 FR 44732; August 31, 2009).
Regulations implementing these IFQ
programs (50 CFR 622.21 and 622.22)
and the dealer reporting requirements
(50 CFR 622.5(c)) require that Federal
dealers and IFQ participants have access
to a computer and internet and that they
conduct administrative functions
associated with dealer reporting and the
IFQ program, e.g., landing transactions,
online. However, these regulations also
specify that during catastrophic
conditions, as determined by the RA,
the RA may waive or modify the
reporting time requirements for dealers
and authorize IFQ participants to use
paper-based forms to complete
administrative functions for the
duration of the catastrophic conditions.
The RA must determine that
catastrophic conditions exist, specify
the duration of the catastrophic
conditions, and specify which
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
participants or geographic areas are
deemed affected.
Hurricane Laura made landfall in the
U.S. near Cameron, Louisiana, in the
Gulf as a Category 4 hurricane on
August 27, 2020. Strong winds and
flooding from this hurricane impacted
communities throughout coastal
Louisiana and Texas, resulting in power
outages and damage to homes,
businesses, and infrastructure. As a
result, the RA has determined that
catastrophic conditions exist in the Gulf
for the Louisiana parishes of Saint
Tammany, Orleans, Saint Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, Saint Charles,
Lafourche, Terrebonne, Saint Mary,
Iberia, Vermilion, and Cameron; and for
the Texas counties of Orange, Jefferson,
Chambers, Harris, and Galveston.
Through this temporary rule, the RA
is authorizing Federal dealers in these
affected areas to delay reporting of trip
tickets to NOAA Fisheries and IFQ
dealers in this affected area to use
paper-based forms, from August 31,
2020, through October 5, 2020. NMFS
will provide additional notification to
affected dealers via NOAA Weather
Radio, Fishery Bulletins, and other
appropriate means. NOAA Fisheries
will continue to monitor and re-evaluate
the areas and duration of the
catastrophic conditions, as necessary.
Dealers may delay electronic
reporting of trip tickets to NMFS during
catastrophic conditions. Dealers are to
report all landings to NMFS as soon as
possible. Assistance for Federal dealers
in effected area is available from the
Fisheries Monitoring Branch at 1–305–
361–4581. NMFS previously provided
IFQ dealers with the necessary paper
forms and instructions for submission in
the event of catastrophic conditions.
Paper forms are also available from the
RA upon request. The electronic
systems for submitting information to
NMFS will continue to be available to
all dealers, and dealers in the affected
area are encouraged to continue using
these systems, if accessible.
The administrative program functions
available to IFQ dealers in the area
affected by catastrophic conditions will
be limited under the paper-based
system. There will be no mechanism for
transfers of IFQ shares or allocation
under the paper-based system in effect
during catastrophic conditions.
Assistance in complying with the
requirements of the paper-based system
will be available via the Catch Share
Support line, 1–866–425–7627 Monday
through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Eastern Time.
E:\FR\FM\03SER1.SGM
03SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54936-54942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19195]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1244
[EP 385 (Sub-No. 8)]
Waybill Sample Reporting
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) adopts a final rule
that amends its Waybill Sample data collection regulations by
increasing the sampling rates of certain non-intermodal carload
shipments, specifying separate sampling strata and rates for intermodal
shipments, and eliminating the manual system for reporting waybill
data.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 1, 2021. Waybill reporting on
or after the effective date must comply with the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathon Binet at (202) 245-0368.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A waybill is a ``document or instrument
prepared from the bill of lading contract or shipper's instructions as
to the disposition of the freight, and [is] used by the railroad(s)
involved as the authority to move the shipment and as the basis for
determining the freight charges and interline settlements.'' 49 CFR
1244.1(c). Among other things, a waybill contains the following data:
(1) The originating and terminating freight stations; (2) the railroads
participating in the movement; (3) the points of all railroad
interchanges; (4) the number and type of cars; (5) the car initial and
number; (6) the movement weight in hundredweight; (7) the commodity;
and (8) the freight revenue.
A railroad is required to file with the Board a sample of its
waybill data for all line-haul revenue waybills terminated on its lines
in the United States,\1\ if the railroad: (a) Terminated at least 4,500
revenue carloads in any of the three preceding years, or (b) terminated
at least 5% of the revenue carloads terminating in any state in any of
the three preceding years. 49 CFR 1244.2(a). The number of waybills
that a railroad is required to file (i.e., the sampling rate) is set
forth at current 49 CFR 1244.4(b) and (c), and varies based on the
number of carloads on the waybill, as shown in Table 1 below.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A railroad moving traffic on the U.S. rail system to the
Canadian or Mexican border is required to ``include a representative
sample of such international export traffic in the Waybill Sample.''
49 CFR 1244.3(c).
\2\ The Board's regulations set forth different sampling rates
for computerized and manual systems of reporting. See 49 CFR
1244.4(b)-(c). Under the manual system, railroads submit Waybill
Sample data through authenticated copies of a sample of audited
revenue waybills instead of using a computerized system. Id. section
1244.4(a). The manual system of reporting is not currently used by
any railroads and, as discussed further below, this final rule
eliminates it.
Table 1--Current Waybill Sampling Rates
[Computerized System of Reporting]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample rate 3
Number of carloads on waybill\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/40
3 to 15................................................. 1/12
16 to 60................................................ 1/4
61 to 100............................................... 1/3
101 and over............................................ 1/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board creates an aggregate compilation of the sampled waybills
of all reporting carriers, referred to as the Waybill Sample. First
collected in 1946 by the Board's predecessor,\4\ the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC), the Waybill Sample is the Board's principal
source of data about freight rail shipments. It has broad application
in, among other things, rate cases, the development of costing systems,
productivity studies, exemption decisions, and analyses of industry
trends. The Waybill Sample is also used by other Federal agencies,
state and local government agencies, the transportation industry,
shippers, research organizations, universities, and
[[Page 54937]]
others that have a need for rail shipment data. Because some of the
submitted waybill data is commercially sensitive, the Board's
regulations place limitations on the release and use of confidential
Waybill Sample data. See 49 CFR 1244.9; see also 49 U.S.C. 11904.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The column showing the sample rate indicates the fraction of
the total number of waybills within each stratum that must be
submitted (e.g., for waybills of one to two carloads, the railroad
must submit one out of every 40 waybills).
\4\ See Bureau of Transp. Econ. & Stat., Interstate Com. Comm'n,
Statement No. 543, Waybill Statistics their History & Uses 15, 19,
40 (1954); Waybill Analysis of Transp. of Prop.--R.Rs., 364 I.C.C.
928, 929 (1981) (``Since 1946, the Interstate Commerce Commission
has collected a continuous sample of carload waybills for railroads
terminating shipments.'').
\5\ Any grant of access to confidential Waybill Sample data
requires the requestor to execute a confidentiality agreement before
receiving the data. See 49 CFR 1244.9(a)-(e). In addition to the
confidential Waybill Sample, the Board also generates a Public Use
Waybill File that includes only non-confidential data. See 49 CFR
1244.9(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Background
As described more fully in the notice of proposed rulemaking in
this proceeding, the Board's Rate Reform Task Force (RRTF) issued a
report on April 25, 2019 (RRTF Report) \6\ recommending, among other
things, that the Board change the sampling rates for its Waybill
Sample. RRTF Report 14, 47-49; Waybill Sample Reporting (NPRM), EP 385
(Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 2 (STB served Nov. 29, 2019). After
considering the recommendations in the RRTF Report and the overall
utility of the current Waybill Sample, in the NPRM issued on November
29, 2019, the Board proposed a simplified waybill sampling rate for
non-intermodal carload shipments and separate waybill sampling strata
and rates for intermodal shipments, as shown in Table 2 below. See
NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 6-8; 84 FR 65768, 65770-71 (Nov.
29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The RRTF Report was posted on the Board's website on April
29, 2019, and can be accessed at https://www.stb.gov/stb/rail/Rate_Reform_Task_Force_Report.pdf.
Table 2--Proposed Waybill Sampling Rates
[Computerized System of Reporting]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of non-intermodal carloads on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/5
3 to 15................................................. 1/5
16 to 60................................................ 1/5
61 to 100............................................... 1/5
101 and over............................................ 1/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of intermodal trailer/container units on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/40
3 and over.............................................. 1/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 4, the
Board reasoned that a net increase in sample size would provide more
comprehensive information to the Board and other users of Waybill
Sample data in a variety of contexts, such as exemption decisions,
stratification reports, traffic volume and rate studies, Board-
initiated investigations, certain rate cases, and any other waybill
data-related analysis the Board currently performs or might seek to
perform in the future. The Board also explained that the added number
of observations in the Waybill Sample would likely allow it to avoid
redacting, for confidentiality reasons, as many results from some of
the Board's routine analysis published on its website (e.g., the
Standard Transportation Commodity Code 7 stratification report). Id. at
4-5. In addition, because it currently receives monthly and quarterly
waybill data from reporting carriers, increasing the sampling rate
would provide the Board with more observations in any given month or
quarter from which it could draw meaningful insights throughout the
year. Id. at 5. The Board also proposed that it should change the
sampling requirements so that a greater portion of Waybill Sample data
would represent regulated traffic instead of exempt traffic and stated
that the proposed changes would help address the acknowledged
shortcomings concerning the scarcity of data in some rate cases. Id. at
4-5, 8. The NPRM stated that the proposed waybill sampling rates would
increase the percentage of movement categories containing at least 25
observations,\7\ suggesting that the proposed changes would produce
more movement categories that have sufficient representativeness. Id.
at 5-6, 8-10, 8 n.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ According to the Central Limit Theorem, once a sample has
sufficient observations, it is considered to be normally distributed
and can be used to approximate the mean and variance of the
population from which it was sampled. Generally, around 25 or 30
observations is considered to be enough for those approximations.
See NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 5 n.10 (citing Robert V.
Hogg et al., Probability and Statistical Inference 202 (9th ed.
2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board received seven opening comments on the NPRM from the
following organizations: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
(AFPM); Association of American Railroads (AAR); CSX Transportation,
Inc. (CSXT); National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA); RSI Logistics,
Inc. (RSI Logistics); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); and
Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL). The Board received one reply
comment, from AAR.
Final Rule
After considering the comments, the Board will adopt the rule
proposed in the NPRM, with certain modifications. Below, the Board
addresses the comments and discusses the modifications being adopted in
the final rule. The text of the final rule is below.
A. Sampling Rates and Strata
The comments received generally underscore the importance of the
Waybill Sample as a critical source of information about the rail
industry. For example, USDA notes that the Waybill Sample ``is the most
detailed and comprehensive data the federal government currently has on
rail freight movements, making it instrumental in identifying trends
and issues in the industry.'' (USDA Comment 2.) RSI Logistics similarly
states that the Waybill Sample ``provides valuable insight into the
rail marketplace.'' (RSI Logistics Comment 1.) Due to the Waybill
Sample's utility, most commenters support the Board's efforts to
increase the quantity of waybill data collected through modified
sampling rates. (AAR Comment 1; AFPM Comment 4; CSXT Comment 1; RSI
Logistics Comment 1; USDA Comment 2, 4.) Although some commenters
question the potential benefits of the proposed changes, suggest
modifications to the proposed sampling rates, or urge the Board to be
watchful for unintended effects, (see AAR Comment 1; NGFA Comment 4-5;
WCTL Comment 4-6), no commenter opposes the Board's effort to expand
the quantity of waybill data collected.
Regarding suggested modifications to the proposed rule, AAR
cautions against the Board's proposal to reduce the data collected for
larger, non-intermodal shipments. In particular, AAR notes that ``non-
coal larger blocks of shipments are more likely to have greater
variance in their characteristics, including in size, frequency, and
origin-destination pairs'' and claims that much of this detail could be
lost as a result of the proposed reduction in the sampling rates for
these strata. (AAR Comment 3.) AAR also states that ``there is no
reason to suspect that shipments in the larger carload strata would be
any less relevant to the small rate case process[,]'' which would make
``the need for more observations [of larger shipments] . . . just as
important as for the smaller carload strata.'' (Id.) Based on these
concerns, AAR argues that ``[t]he Board's proposal to reduce the number
of samples for the larger carload strata is at odds with the
overarching goal of broadening access to relief and addressing the
scarcity of data concerns expressed by the Board.'' (Id.) AAR therefore
asks the Board to maintain the current sampling rates for non-
intermodal shipments with 16 or more carloads. (AAR Comment 1; AAR
Reply 1.) CSXT likewise asks the Board to maintain the sampling rates
for non-
[[Page 54938]]
intermodal shipments with 16 or more carloads. (CSXT Comment 1 n.1.)
After considering the comments from AAR and CSXT, the Board
concludes that the proposed decrease in the sampling rates for larger,
non-intermodal shipments should not be adopted. The Board proposed
reducing the sampling rates for non-intermodal shipments with 16 or
more carloads per waybill to match the proposed sampling rates for non-
intermodal shipments with 15 or fewer carloads as a way of simplifying
the sampling rates while still achieving a net increase in the non-
intermodal shipment data collected. The commenters' arguments
concerning the variable characteristics of larger, non-coal shipments
and the relevance of larger shipments to the small rate case process
support the conclusion that the Waybill Sample would lose robustness
for shipments of 16 or more carloads if the proposal were implemented.
Although one of the goals of the Board's proposal was to simplify
sampling rates, the Board also seeks to maintain a robust dataset that
is of use to the agency and stakeholders. As noted in the NPRM, a
greater number of observations would allow for additional or more
granular factors to compare movements while maintaining
representativeness. This applies to shipments of 16 or more carloads
and justifies maintaining the current (more frequent) sampling rates
for those carload shipments. Therefore, the Board will maintain the
current sampling rates for non-intermodal shipments with 16 or more
carloads, as suggested by AAR and CSXT.
USDA asks the Board to consider removing the stratification process
altogether and collecting 100% of the waybill population data,
``postulat[ing]'' that if the ICC had possessed current technology at
its disposal ``it would not have needed to undertake the statistical
design process that led to the creation of today's [Waybill Sample].''
(USDA Comment 2.) USDA contends that collecting 100% of the waybill
population should not be an additional burden for the railroads or the
Board. (Id. at 2-3.) USDA argues alternatively that if 100% of the
population data cannot be collected, the Board should ``significantly
increase the sample size more than proposed.'' (Id. at 3.) Similarly,
NGFA asks the Board to explore the feasibility of expanding to 100%
data collection for non-intermodal carload traffic. (NGFA Comment 4.)
In response, AAR raises various concerns about 100% data sampling,
including regarding security-sensitive information and the risk of
disclosure of confidential information. (AAR Reply 4-5.) AAR instead
argues that the Board's proposal, as modified to maintain the non-
intermodal sampling rates for larger shipments, ``strikes a balanced
approach to obtaining more information, while preserving customer
anonymity.'' (Id. at 5).
The Board will not pursue 100% waybill data collection at this
time, although it does not foreclose the possibility of doing so in the
future. While the arguments in favor of 100% collection may have merit,
the Board expects the increase in the sample adopted in this final rule
will achieve the goals of the NPRM, and the Board has not identified
any implementation or data management issues that could delay such
improvements. As a result, the advantages of increased sampling will be
captured in the 2021 reporting year with sufficient time for carriers
to adjust to the new requirements. In contrast, pursuing a 100% waybill
collection at this stage of the rulemaking proceeding would delay
implementing the important, incremental improvements to the waybill
collection that will be achieved here. Further, prior to removing the
sampling framework altogether, the Board, through notice and comment,
would need to fully assess the utility of the collection and weigh that
against any identified implementation or data management issues.
As an alternative to 100% data sampling, some commenters asked the
Board to further stratify the collected waybill data based on
additional shipment variables, such as the railroad involved in the
movement, the distance of the movement, the commodity transported, and
the geographic region of the movement. (NGFA Comment 4; USDA Comment 3-
4.) Beyond shipment data, some commenters suggest collecting waybill
data based on performance variables related to service quality,
demurrage, and accessorial charges. (AFPM Comment 4-5; USDA Comment 4.)
In response, AAR argues that ``these suggestions fail to recognize the
nature and purpose of the waybill as a commercial document'' and
``[r]equiring additional, unrelated data to be included in waybills
would require changes to industry practice and pose significant
challenges.'' (AAR Reply 2-3.)
The Board will not pursue the further stratification by additional
shipment variables or the addition of performance variables to waybill
data collection at this time. The Board already collects certain
performance data, albeit not on a shipment basis, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 1250. See, e.g., Pet. for Rulemaking to Amend 49 CFR part 1250, EP
724 (Sub-No. 5), slip op. at 3-5 (STB served May 21, 2020). Similarly,
the Board recognizes the importance of monitoring the application of
demurrage and accessorial rules and charges, which is why it initiated
several related proceedings. See, e.g., Oversight Hearing on Demurrage
& Accessorial Charges, Docket No. EP 754; Policy Statement on Demurrage
& Accessorial Rules & Charges, Docket No. EP 757; Demurrage Billing
Requirements, Docket No. EP 759. Because the Board has received public
input on the proposals in the NPRM, it can implement these changes for
the 2021 reporting year with sufficient time for carriers to adjust to
the new regulations, whereas pursuing further stratification beyond
what is proposed in the NPRM, or adding performance data that was not
proposed in the NPRM, could delay improvements to the Waybill Sample
until the 2022 reporting year. Prior to considering any possible
further stratification or adding performance data, the Board, through
notice and comment, would need to assess, among other things, the
benefits of such changes against any potential technical challenges.
Some commenters ask the Board to monitor closely the effect of
implemented changes for any unintended consequences, (NGFA Comment 5),
or to maintain a parallel Waybill Sample based on the current
methodology for at least two years (WCTL Comment 5-6). In response, AAR
states that ``[t]he Board can modify its processes to address anomalies
or unintended consequences if they arise.'' (AAR Reply 6.) The Board
rejects WCTL's suggestion that the Board maintain a parallel Waybill
Sample because, compared to current regulations, the final rule's
waybill sampling rates, which have been modified from the NPRM, are
either greater or the same for each stratified category of non-
intermodal carload shipments and will have their expansion factors
adjusted accordingly; as such, there is no longer any basis for concern
that the Board's Waybill Sample would become less representative for
certain non-intermodal carload shipments.\8\ As a
[[Page 54939]]
result, increasing the sampling rates would not affect any analyses
that are based on a representation of the entire population of waybill
shipments. The Board will continue to monitor the waybill dataset for
anomalies or unintended effects, as it does in the ordinary course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under 49 CFR 1090.2, rail and highway trailer-on-flatcar/
container-on-flatcar (TOFC/COFC) service--which generally covers
intermodal shipments--is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
subtitle IV, regardless of the type, affiliation, or ownership of
the carrier performing the highway portion of the service. Although
the final rule reduces the sampling rates for larger intermodal
shipments, the sampling rates adopted here will still produce a
representative sample of intermodal shipments. See NPRM, EP 385
(Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 7 (explaining how sampling intermodal
shipments separately would be appropriate in light of intermodal
billing practices and would avoid over-sampling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSI Logistics suggests that the Board should require reporting by
``holding companies'' consisting ``of multiple Class II or III
railroads'' if their traffic volume otherwise meets the reporting
threshold. (RSI Logistics Comment 1.) The Board declines to make this
change. A change to the applicability provisions of 49 CFR 1244.2 is
beyond the scope of this proceeding, which focuses on adjustments to
the sampling rates and strata.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RSI Logistics also requests that the Waybill Sample be
published ``in a timelier manner'' because delay in the release of
the data ``reduces the value of some of the information.'' (RSI
Logistics Comment 1.) Publishing the annual Waybill Sample requires
compiling the waybill data, analyzing it for potential issues, and
correcting any issues identified, and is a process that cannot begin
until the end of each calendar year. The Board will continue to
publish the Waybill Sample as promptly as possible while ensuring
the reliability of the published data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Waybill Record Order
The Board's standards and format guidance for the waybill
collection is currently found in Statement No. 81-1, Procedure for
Sampling Waybill Records by Computer (2009 edition),\10\ and currently
provides that submitted waybills may be listed in any order. USDA
comments that ``[u]nder systematic sampling, order is an important
consideration to account for patterns in the frame that may correspond
to the skip interval,'' and suggests that the Board ``either specify an
order, use a random ordering, or even use a simple random sample rather
than `any order,' in order to avoid potential sampling bias.'' (USDA
Comment 3 n.1.) The Board has no evidence suggesting that the Waybill
Sample's unspecified sampling order has resulted in sampling bias.
Moreover, the use of stratification is designed to reduce sampling
bias. By sampling within certain strata, the sample is guaranteed to
capture records of larger shipments that move less frequently. In
addition, USDA's recommendation to use a random order is already
addressed by using a different random start for each of the four
subsamples within each stratum. Accordingly, the Board will not adopt
USDA's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The current edition of Statement No. 81-1 is posted on the
Board's website and can be accessed by selecting the ``Economic
Data'' quick link, then selecting the ``Carload Waybill Sample''
page link, and then selecting the ``Procedure for Sampling Waybill
Records by Computer'' link under the ``Public Use Waybill Samples''
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Manual System of Reporting
In the NPRM, EP 385 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 3 n.5, the Board
stated that ``parties may provide comments on whether the manual system
[for reporting waybill data] should be eliminated given its current
lack of use.'' In response, NGFA states that the Board ``should deem
manually submitted waybills to be obsolete and rule that they no longer
are a permissible way for carriers to submit such data.'' (NGFA Comment
5.) No other commenter addressed this issue, and the Board notes that
no smaller carriers commented in this proceeding. Due to its current
lack of use and the absence of support for its continuation, the Board
sees no need to maintain the regulatory provision for manual reporting.
Therefore, the Board will eliminate the manual system for reporting
waybill data in the final rule and remove references to the manual
system at sections 1244.4, 1244.5, 1244.6, and 1244.7.
D. Effective Date
CSXT asks the Board to provide a minimum of 90 days between the
service date and the effective date of the final rule to give carriers
sufficient time to make the programming changes necessary to comply
with the revised reporting requirements. (CSXT Comment 3.) CSXT also
requests that the Board limit, to the extent possible, revisions to
Statement No. 81-1, and that if ``extensive procedural changes'' to
Statement No. 81-1 are made, an additional 60 days be added to the 90
days it requested to implement the changes proposed in the NPRM. (Id.
at 2-3.) The Board is sensitive to the practicalities surrounding any
revision of the waybill reporting requirements. As a result, the Board
will require reporting under the final rule to begin on January 1,
2021, which will give reporting carriers sufficient time to prepare for
the revised requirements.\11\ Prior to that time (i.e., for all 2020
waybill reportings), carriers should continue to report according to
the current sampling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Board's Office of Economics has revised Statement No.
81-1 to account for the changes adopted in this final rule. The
revised edition is attached as Appendix B in the served decision,
which is available to the public on the Board's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
For the reasons discussed above, after consideration of all the
comments received, the Board is adopting a final rule to amend its
regulations to specify separate waybill sampling strata for intermodal
and non-intermodal shipments and establish revised waybill sampling
rates as shown in Table 3, below.
Table 3--Final Rule Waybill Sampling Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of non-intermodal carloads on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/5
3 to 15................................................. 1/5
16 to 60................................................ 1/4
61 to 100............................................... 1/3
101 and over............................................ 1/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of intermodal trailer/container units on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/40
3 and over.............................................. 1/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule is set out in full below and will be codified in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
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. Section 601-604. In its
final rule, the agency must either include a final regulatory
flexibility analysis, section 604(a), or certify that the final rule
would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' section 605(b). Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce
the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the
RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of
small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those
entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small
entities ``whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated'' by the rule.
White Eagle Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule would
not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of
small entities, within the meaning of the RFA.\12\ Under
[[Page 54940]]
the Board's existing regulations, a railroad is required to file
Waybill Sample data for all line-haul revenue waybills terminated on
its lines if: (a) It terminated at least 4,500 revenue carloads in any
of the three preceding years; or (b) it terminated at least 5% of the
revenue carloads terminating in any state in any of the three preceding
years. 49 CFR 1244.2. Under this criteria, 53 railroads are currently
required to report Waybill Sample data. Of these 53 railroads, the
Board estimates that 36 are Class III rail carriers, and therefore
small businesses within the meaning of the RFA. Of the 53 railroads
required to report Waybill Sample data, 45 railroads currently use
Railinc Corporation (Railinc)--a wholly-owned information technology
subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads--to sample their
waybills.\13\ Eight railroads currently sample their own waybills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject
to Board jurisdiction, the Board defines a ``small business'' as
only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail
carriers 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 rail
carriers have annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in
1991 dollars, or $40,384,263 or less when adjusted for inflation
using 2019 data. Class II carriers have annual operating revenues of
less than $250 million in 1991 dollars, or $504,803,294 when
adjusted for inflation using 2019 data. The Board calculates the
revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue
thresholds in decisions and on its website. 49 CFR 1201.1-1;
Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served
June 10, 2020).
\13\ Some railroads hire a third party to collect their
waybills. That third party then sends these waybills to Railinc for
sampling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the railroads that submit their waybills to Railinc for
sampling, there will be no additional burden or costs as result of the
changes adopted in the final rule. These entities will continue to
submit all their waybills to Railinc, which will then sample the data
in accordance with the Board's revised sampling rates. Because the
Board contracts with Railinc to sample railroads' waybills, the
entities that use Railinc to sample their waybills will incur no
additional costs from Railinc as a result of the Board's proposed
changes. Of the approximately 36 Class III rail carriers, the Board
estimates that 34 carriers fall into this category and therefore will
not incur any additional burden or cost.
For the railroads that choose to sample their own waybills, the
final rule will not result in a significant economic impact. The
purpose of the changes adopted in the final rule is to create a more
robust Waybill Sample and result in more comprehensive information
critical to the Board's decision-making and analyses. The final rule
will increase the rate at which the Board samples certain railroad
shipments and appropriately differentiate based on industry waybill
practices for intermodal shipments. These changes will result in
additional observations for certain shipments but will not
significantly alter small entities' current practices for sampling
their shipments. Based on the total burden hours described in the
Paperwork Reduction Act analysis below, the Board estimates that, for
railroads conducting their own sampling, the change in reporting
procedures will result in a one-time burden of approximately 150 hours
per railroad. Moreover, this impact will not apply to a substantial
number of small entities, as the Board estimates that only two of the
approximately 36 Class III rail carriers will incur this burden.
Accordingly, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
final 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, Offices of
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In this proceeding, the Board is modifying an existing collection
of information that was approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the collection of Waybill Sample data (OMB Control No.
2140-0015). In the NPRM, the Board sought comments pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 and OMB regulations
at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3) regarding: (1) Whether the collection of
information, as proposed below to the NPRM, 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.
In the NPRM, the Board estimated that the proposed requirements
would add a total one-time hourly burden of 640 hours (or approximately
213.3 hours per year as amortized over three years) because the
railroads, in most cases, will need to edit their software programs to
implement these changes. The Board anticipated that, once the burden of
the one-time programming changes is incurred, the annual burden would
remain the same as before this modification. The Board received one
comment from CSXT, offering its estimates for the one-time hourly
burden of actual time and costs of collection of Waybill Sample
data.\14\ The Board received five other comments that generally
pertained to the Board's burden analysis under the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In NPRM, Tables B-2, B-3 and B-4 show a total annual burden
of 774.6 hours. This incorporates the annualized one-time hour
burden of 213.3 hours under the proposed rule and the agency's most
recent estimated annual burden of 561.3 hours for the extension
request (due to a change in the number of carriers submitting their
own data, there was a slight change from the annual burden of 555
hours approved in 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, CSXT provides two estimates for its one-time
hourly burden based on certain assumptions. CSXT estimates a base one-
time hourly burden of 200 hours, assuming (i) the introduction of two
new strata, (ii) no changes to the Kth interval and random starts for
the existing strata, and (iii) the use of existing Kth interval and
random start tables for the two new strata. CSXT estimates an
additional one-time hourly burden of 50 hours if new Kth intervals and
random start tables are necessary. It also suggests that other
procedural changes are likely to have a similarly additive effect.
(CSXT Comment 2.)
CSXT's estimates are helpful but CSXT's first assumption--that
there will be two new intermodal strata--is not accurate because the
final rule creates only one new stratum. The first intermodal stratum
of ``1 to 2'' trailer/container units remains unchanged from the ``1 to
2'' carloads stratum currently applied to intermodal shipments. The
second intermodal stratum of ``3 and over'' trailer/container units is
the only new stratum. It combines the other four carload strata
currently applied to intermodal shipments into one stratum (i.e., ``3
and over'' trailer/container units). Given that the number of new
strata assumed by CSXT is reduced by half, its base estimate of 200
one-time burden hours may also be reduced by half, to 100 one-time
burden hours.
CSXT's second assumption is for an additional one-time burden of 50
hours if the Board intends to add new tables/intervals for the new
sampling rates of the new strata. The new sampling rate of ``1/5
waybills'' will require a new Kth interval and random starts table,
which will use the same interval and start table, even though it will
be applied to three different strata, (i.e., the first two carload
strata and the second intermodal stratum). This will result in an
additional one-time burden of 50 hours, which the Board will add to the
[[Page 54941]]
adjusted base estimate of 100 hours, for a total of 150 one-time burden
hours.
The other comments received, which generally pertain to the
collection of this information, provided no data estimates or
assumptions upon which to adjust the burdens under the PRA. These other
comments pertain to those burdens in two ways. First, USDA and RSI
Logistics propose general rule changes that would impact the burdens
here. (USDA Comment 2-3; RSI Logistics Comment 1.) These comments are
addressed above and are not adopted in this rulemaking. Second, AAR,
AFPM, and NGFA point to the estimated total one-time hour burden (640
hours) under the PRA set forth in the NPRM as indicating the limited
cost of the changes in the proposed rule. (AAR Comment 4 n.4; AFPM
Comment 4; NGFA Comment 4-5.)
CSXT's estimates, as adjusted above, are reasonable. Therefore, the
one-time burden for each of the eight railroads providing their own
waybills will be increased from a total of 80 hours to 150 hours for
each railroad providing its own waybills, as provided in the table
below.
Table 4--Estimated Additional One-Time Hour Burden Under Final Rule for Each Railroad Providing Its Own Waybills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated one-
Categories of respondents Number of time hour burden Total one-time
respondents (per respondent) hour burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads that conduct their own sampling and report monthly. 5 150 750
Railroads that conduct their own sampling and report 3 150 450
quarterly...................................................
--------------------------------------------------
Total One-Time Hour Burden............................... .............. ................. 1,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's removal of the manual filing option does not impact the
PRA analysis because the Board has not received a manual filing in 10
years.
This request to modify and extend an existing, approved collection
will be submitted to OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44
U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11. The request will address the
comments discussed above as part of the PRA approval process.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule
as non-major, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
It is ordered:
1. The Board adopts the final rule set forth in this decision.
Notice of the final rule will be published in the Federal Register.
2. This decision is effective on January 1, 2021.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1244
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Decided: August 26, 2020.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface
Transportation Board amends part 1244 of title 49, chapter X, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1244--WAYBILL ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY--
RAILROADS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1244 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1244.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 1244.4 Sampling of waybills.
(a) Reporting samples. Subject railroads shall submit waybill
sample information as a computer file containing specified information
from a sample waybill.
(1) Statement No. 81-1 contains information on the standards and
format for the computer file.
(2) Effective January 1, 2021, and thereafter, unless otherwise
ordered, the sampling rates are as follows:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of non-intermodal carloads on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/5
3 to 15................................................. 1/5
16 to 60................................................ 1/4
61 to 100............................................... 1/3
101 and over............................................ 1/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of intermodal trailer/container units on waybill Sample rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 2.................................................. 1/40
3 and over.............................................. 1/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Controls and Annual Counts. (1) Each subject railroad shall
maintain a control procedure to ensure complete and accurate reporting
for the waybill sampling. All pertinent waybill data shall be included
on hard copy waybill submissions including inbound references for
transit waybills. All such pertinent waybill data shall be legible.
(2) All subject railroads shall maintain a record of the number of
line-haul revenue carloads that terminated on their line in a calendar
year and shall furnish this number when requested by the Board.
(3) All subject railroads shall furnish the Board the control
counts and file specification information as required by Statement No.
81-1.
(4) Certification by a responsible officer of the subject railroad
as to the completeness and accuracy of sample shall be made once a year
in accordance with the instructions on the Transmittal Form OPAD-1.
0
3. Amend Sec. 1244.5 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1244.5 Date of filing.
(a) The reporting period for which subject railroads submit waybill
sample information shall be the audit (accounting) month except that
subject railroads may submit waybill sample information quarterly as
specified in Statement No. 81-1.
* * * * *
(d) Subject railroads shall complete the Transmittal Form OPAD-1 to
accompany each waybill file submission.
0
4. Revise Sec. 1244.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 1244.6 Retention of files.
(a) Subject railroads shall retain the underlying hard copy
waybills or facsimiles capable of producing legible copies, which shall
be complete including inbound references for transit
[[Page 54942]]
waybills, for a minimum period of four years.
(b) This file of retained waybills shall be maintained in such a
manner that railroads may readily retrieve waybill copies using the
waybill identifier code as shown on the submitted waybill record.
0
5. Amend Sec. 1244.7 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1244.7 Special studies.
(a) Although routine submission of hard copy waybills is not
required, the Board may order railroads to submit hard copies of the
underlying waybills for special studies.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-19195 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
