[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66057-66059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1244
[Docket No. EP 646 (Sub-No. 3)]
Waybill Data Released in Three-Benchmark Rail Rate Proceedings
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is republishing its April 2, 2010 proposal to amend
its rules with respect to the Three-Benchmark methodology used to
adjudicate simplified rate case complaints, to include an expanded
discussion of its rationale and regulatory objectives. This proposal
provides for release to the parties to a Three-Benchmark proceeding of
the unmasked Waybill Sample data of the defendant carrier for the 4
years that correspond with the most recently published Revenue
Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM) figures. The parties would then use
the released Waybill Sample data to form their traffic comparison
groups. The Board seeks comments concerning the amount of data that
would be available under the proposed rule, and the proposal that the
parties would be permitted to draw from all 4 years of waybill data to
form their comparison groups.
DATES: Comments on this proposal are due by November 26, 2010; replies
are due by December 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing
format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing
should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at
the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov.
Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should
send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn:
Docket No. EP 646 (Sub-No. 3), 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-
0001.
Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and self-
copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted
to the Board's Web site.
[[Page 66058]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Quinn at (202) 245-0382.
(Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases
(Simplified Standards), EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007),
aff'd sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB (CSX Transp. I), 568 F.3d 236
(DC Cir. 2009), and vacated in part on reh'g, CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB
(CSX Transp. II), 584 F.3d 1076 (DC Cir. 2009), the Board modified its
simplified rail rate guidelines, creating a simplified stand-alone cost
approach for medium-size rail rate disputes and revising its Three-
Benchmark approach for smaller rail rate disputes.
The Three-Benchmark method compares a challenged rate of the
``issue traffic'' to the rates of a comparison group of traffic drawn
from the Waybill Sample data of the defendant carrier. The Waybill
Sample is a statistical sampling of railroad waybills of the carrier's
shipments that is collected and maintained for use by the Board. See 49
CFR 1244.1(c). The proposed rule in Simplified Standards would have
required parties to draw their traffic comparison groups from the most
recent year of Waybill Sample data of the carrier's other shipments.
Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op.
at 32-33 (STB served July 28, 2006). The final rule, however, allowed
parties to form comparison groups using Waybill Sample data from the 4
most recent years. Simplified Standards, slip op. at 80.
Several railroads \1\ and the Association of American Railroads
challenged the final rule in court on the basis that, under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3), the Board had not provided adequate notice and opportunity
to comment on the change from 1 to 4 years of data from which the
parties could draw to form their proposed comparison groups. CSX
Transp. I, 568 F.3d at 246. Initially, the court determined that it
would not address the merits of petitioners' argument, because the
issue had not been presented to the Board prior to seeking judicial
review and, therefore, had been waived. Id. at 246-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Canadian Pacific Railway Co., Soo Line Railroad Company,
Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On rehearing, however, the court reversed its waiver determination
and considered the merits of petitioners' argument. The court concluded
that the Board had failed to provide adequate notice of the final rule
regarding the available range of Waybill Sample data. Accordingly, the
court vacated that portion of Simplified Standards. CSX Transp. II, 584
F.3d at 1078. As a result, there is currently a gap in the Board's
rules; i.e., there is no defined period for which unmasked Waybill
Sample data is to be released in a Three-Benchmark proceeding.
On April 2, 2010, the Board, through a notice of proposed
rulemaking, proposed to provide for release to the parties in Three-
Benchmark proceedings of the unmasked Waybill Sample data of the
defendant carrier for the 4 years that correspond with the most
recently published RSAM figures. The parties would then draw their
comparison groups in any combination they choose from the released
Waybill Sample data. The Board solicited comments on this proposal.
The Board received comments from shippers, railroads, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and other interested organizations. Some
commenters expressed concern that the Board did not provide the
rationales and regulatory objectives behind the proposed rules. In
response, this decision will provide the Board's rationales and
regulatory objectives. This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes
rules that are identical to those proposed on April 2, 2010.
The use of multiple years of data for the Waybill Sample would be
consistent with the Board's current practice in other contexts in
Three-Benchmark cases. The Board already uses a 4-year averaging period
to determine the other two benchmark components used in a Three-
Benchmark case: The RSAM and R/VC>180 benchmarks. See Rate
Guidelines--Non-Coal Proceedings, (Rate Guidelines) 1 S.T.B. 1004,
1032-33 (1996). The reason for using this 4-year averaging period is to
``smooth out annual variations and minimize the impact of any year that
may have been aberrational for that carrier.'' Rate Guidelines, 1032-
33.
A similar rationale applies to the rule proposed here. The
availability of 4 years of Waybill Sample data would allow parties more
flexibility to choose a comparison group that is a reasonable
reflection of the traffic at issue and to avoid having to use data that
may be aberrational. Giving the option to choose movements over a
multi-year period would provide the parties with more data from which
to choose, which should assist the parties in selecting a comparison
group that more closely resembles the issue traffic. At the same time,
limiting the pool of data to the 4 years that correspond with the most
recently published RSAM figures would prevent the use of data that are
too old to be reliable. By contrast, a shorter period, such as the 1-
year time span envisioned earlier, could cause the comparison groups to
be too small.
If the proposed rules are adopted, parties would not have incentive
to specifically choose only the most favorable data from the 4-year
data set because the Board will choose the comparison group that more
closely resembles the traffic at issue. Thus, if a party selects a
group that heavily favors its position at the expense of a reasonable
comparison, then it is less likely that the Board would choose that
comparison group.
The Board will now provide an opportunity for additional input
regarding the rules proposed here. While we will consider the comments
and replies previously submitted in this proceeding, interested parties
(whether or not they have already participated in this proceeding) may
file additional comments and replies.
The Board has authority to promulgate rules to meet statutory
objectives. See 49 U.S.C. 721(a). The Board is issuing this notice of
proposed rulemaking pursuant to the mandate to ``establish a simplified
and expedited method for determining the reasonableness of challenged
rail rates in those cases in which a full stand-alone cost presentation
is too costly, given the value of the case.'' 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3).
This proposed rule, if implemented, will be part of the framework for
the simplified and expedited method of challenging rail rates.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a
notice of proposed rulemaking must either include an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), or a certification that the
proposed rule will not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The proposed
rule fills in a gap in the Three-Benchmark rate complaint framework by
specifying the number of years of Waybill Sample data that will be made
available to the parties in those cases. By providing clarity on that
issue, the proposed rule would have a positive economic effect on small
entities because it would allow Three-Benchmark rate cases to proceed
more efficiently. Moreover, while the proposed rule delineates the
range of data that would be made available, it does not require the
parties to use any particular quantum of data. Accordingly, pursuant to
5 U.S.C.
[[Page 66059]]
605(b), the Board certifies that the regulations proposed herein would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of this
decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a); 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3).
Decided: October 21, 2010.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and
Commissioner Nottingham.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010-27167 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P