Rule2026-09189
Updating Class I Rail Carrier Reporting Requirements
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 8, 2026
Effective
June 7, 2026
Issuing agencies
Surface Transportation Board
Abstract
The Board is adopting a final rule terminating Class I carriers' supplemental reporting of certain Positive Train Control (PTC) expenditures, and it is requiring Class I carriers to report two service metrics on a weekly basis.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25141-25154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Parts 1241 and 1251
[Docket No. EP 787]
Updating Class I Rail Carrier Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is adopting a final rule terminating Class I
carriers' supplemental reporting of certain Positive Train Control
(PTC) expenditures, and it is requiring Class I carriers to report two
service metrics on a weekly basis.
DATES: This rule will be effective on June 7, 2026. The initial
reporting date will be July 8, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez at 202-915-0862. If you
require accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please
call (202) 245-0245.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2025, the Board issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to (1) terminate existing
requirements for Class I carriers to file supplemental reporting of PTC
expenditures (PTC Supplement) as part of their annual R-1 reports filed
with the Board and (2) require Class I carriers to report two service
metrics to the Board on a weekly basis: original estimated time of
arrival (OETA) and industry spot and pull (ISP). Updating Class I Rail
Carrier Reporting Requirements (NPRM), EP 787 (STB served Sept. 30,
2025).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September
30, 2025 (90 FR 46779).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, the Board received 13 opening comments and
4 replies, which are discussed in this decision.\2\ For the reasons
discussed below, the Board will adopt its proposal with modifications.
The text of the final rule is appended to this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comments were filed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC),
the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the
Association of American Railroads (AAR), CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT), the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), the
Fertilizer Institute (TFI), Grand Trunk Corporation (CN), the
Freight Rail Customer Alliance (FRCA) and the National Coal
Transportation Association (NCTA) (FRCA/NCTA) (joint comments), the
National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), the National Industrial
Transportation League (NITL), the Private Railcar Food and Beverage
Association, Inc. (PRFBA), Mr. Michael Ravnitzky (Ravnitzky), and
Trinidad Benham Corporation (Trinidad Benham). Replies were filed by
ACC, AAR, FRCA/NCTA (joint reply), and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Train Control
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) required Class I
rail carriers to implement PTC--an automated safety system designed to
prevent certain types of train accidents--by December 31, 2015, on main
lines where intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 24102, is regularly provided, and main lines over
which five million or more gross tons of annual traffic and poison- or
toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8,
173.115, and 173.132, are transported. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(1); see also
49 CFR 236.1019 (main line track exceptions). That deadline was later
extended, pursuant to the Positive Train Control Enforcement and
Implementation Act of 2015, to December 31, 2018, and railroads were
allowed to individually petition the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for an alternative schedule and sequence that could further
extend the deadline to a date that reflected implementation as soon as
practicable but was no more than two additional years. 49 U.S.C.
20157(a)(1), (3)(A)-(D); 49 CFR 1.89.
In response to a petition by Union Pacific Railroad Company in
2013, in Docket No. EP 706, the Board adopted a final rule requiring
Class I carriers to file certain data related to PTC expenses in a
supplement included with their annual R-1 reports.\3\ Reporting
Requirements for Positive Train Control Expenses & Invs. (Reporting
Requirements), EP 706, slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Aug. 14, 2013). In
adopting the rule, the Board explained that the PTC Supplement would
provide the Board with important information that ``would help identify
transportation industry changes that may require attention by the
agency'' and ``would assist the Board in preparing financial and
statistical summaries and abstracts to provide itself, Congress, other
government agencies, the transportation industry, and the public with
transportation data useful in making regulatory policy and business
decisions.'' Id. at 3. The PTC Supplement requirement was codified at
49 CFR 1241.11(b). A detailed description of the PTC Supplement
requirement is contained in the NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under 49 U.S.C. 11145(b)(1), the Board may require rail
carriers to file with the Board an annual report containing ``an
account, in as much detail as the Board may require, of the affairs
of the rail carrier.'' The Board's regulations require each Class I
rail carrier to submit such annual reports, known as R-1 reports,
containing information about finances and operating statistics. 49
CFR 1241.11(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2020, FRA announced that PTC implementation was
complete on all required freight and passenger railroad route miles.
FRA, Positive Train Control (PTC), <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc">https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc</a>
(last visited Apr. 28, 2026). FRA also certified that each host
railroad's PTC system complies with the technical requirements for PTC
systems. Id.
On August 26, 2024, the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
filed a petition to reopen Docket No. EP 706 and terminate the PTC
Supplement requirement. AAR stated that, when the railroads requested
that the Board adopt supplemental PTC reporting more than a decade ago,
PTC-related capital costs and operating expenditures were ``anticipated
to be particularly high during the installation stage.'' AAR Pet. 1,
Reporting Requirements, EP 706. But AAR argued that, since that time,
``the vast majority of costs associated with implementing PTC have been
dispensed with,'' and that the PTC Supplement requirement is no longer
necessary. Id. at 4. Additionally, AAR argued that Class I railroads
are ``incurring unnecessary costs and expending significant time'' to
comply with the PTC-related reporting requirements. Id.
In the NPRM, the Board proposed elimination of the PTC
Supplement.\4\ NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 1. The Board stated that,
given that PTC has been fully implemented, the benefits from the
supplemental reporting no longer justify the burden of generating and
reporting the detailed information required by 49 CFR 1241.11(b). Id.
at 3. Additionally, the Board noted that ending the PTC Supplement
Requirement would simplify carriers' annual R-1 reporting. Id. Under
the Board's proposal, PTC-related expenditures would still be reflected
in the R-1 ``capital investments and expenses'' totals but would not be
separately identifiable from non-PTC expenditures. Id. The Board also
proposed that, should it adopt the proposed discontinuance of
[[Page 25142]]
the PTC Supplement, carriers would be required to ``submit a one-time
summary document identifying individual line items in their respective
R-1 reports that contain PTC-related expenditures representing at least
15% of the line-item amounts.'' Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Given the NPRM issued in Docket No. EP 787, the Board denied
as moot AAR's petition to reopen Docket No. EP 706. Reporting
Requirements for Positive Train Control Expenses & Invs., EP 706,
slip op. at 2 (STB served Sept. 30, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2026, the Board served a decision in Docket No. EP
706 (Sub-No. 1) waiving the requirement that carriers file, at that
time, PTC Supplements with their 2025 R-1 reports, which were due March
31, 2026. 2025 Reporting Requirements for Positive Train Control
Expenses & Invs., EP 706 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 (STB served Jan.
30, 2026). The Board stated that it would ``in a subsequent decision in
Docket No. EP 787 . . . address the need, if any, for carriers to file
2025 PTC Supplements at a later date.'' Id., slip op. at 2.
Commenters generally express support for the Board's proposal to
terminate the PTC Supplement. (See ACC Comments 1; AFPM Comments 3; AAR
Comments 1-3; CN Comments 1-2; CSXT Comments 3, 15; Ravnitzky Comments
2.) AAR comments, ``[b]ecause Class I rail carriers have implemented
PTC as required . . . separately reporting the expenses associated with
the development and implementation of PTC is no longer necessary.''
(AAR Comments 2.) CN argues that the Board, should it terminate the PTC
Supplement requirement, would ``benefit in terms of efficiency, as it
would be able to reduce the hours spent reviewing the independent
accountant's workpapers related to PTC data.'' (CN Comments 4.)
Additionally, ACC states that, because ``PTC has been fully implemented
on all required freight and passenger railroad route miles and
implementation costs have largely been paid. . . . the supplemental
reporting of PTC-related expenses provides little ongoing value to the
Board and other stakeholders.'' (ACC Comments 2.)
One commenter, Ravnitzky, notes his support of the proposed
termination of the PTC Supplement but argues that the elimination of
the PTC Supplement ``should not foreclose the Board's ability to obtain
targeted information when reasonably necessary.'' (Ravnitzky Comments
1-2.) Ravnitzky recommends that the Board clarify that its action does
not limit its statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 11145 to request PTC-
specific financial or operational data, to require production of
records, or to conduct audits when the Board determines that collection
of such information is necessary. (Id. at 2.)
While no commenters oppose the Board's proposal to terminate the
PTC Supplement requirement, two commenters object to the Board's
proposal to require parties to submit a one-time summary document and
two commenters support it. AAR and CN question the need for the
summary, express concern about the burden associated with preparing the
summary, and seek additional clarity regarding its contents. (AAR
Comments 3; CN Comments 2, 4.) Both of these commenters note that the
Board did not state whether the summary would be calculated with 2024
or 2025 data, and that basing the summary on 2025 data would eliminate
the reduction in burden that the NPRM identifies for 2025. (AAR
Comments 3; CN Comments 2.) ACC and AFPM support the proposed summary
requirement, arguing that it would provide transparency and closure.
(ACC Comments 2; AFPM Comments 3.)
After considering the comments, the Board concludes that separate
PTC reporting is no longer warranted. Commenters have confirmed the
Board's observation that the PTC implementation process is complete. At
this time, there is limited, if any, benefit to requiring carriers to
separately report PTC-related expenses, especially given the cost and
time required to comply with the PTC Supplement requirements. The Board
therefore will adopt its proposal to terminate the PTC Supplement
requirement. As noted in the NPRM, PTC-related expenditures will still
be reflected in the R-1 ``capital investments and expenses'' totals,
but would not be separately identifiable from non-PTC expenditures.
Elimination of the supplemental PTC reporting furthers the goals of the
rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101 by minimizing the need
for federal regulatory control over the rail transportation system, 49
U.S.C. 10101(2), and by ensuring the availability of accurate cost
information in regulatory proceedings, while minimizing the burden on
rail carriers of developing and maintaining the capability of providing
such information, 49 U.S.C. 10101(13). Given that the Board is
terminating the PTC Supplement requirement, the Board will not require
carriers to submit PTC Supplements for 2025 R-1 reporting. Moreover, in
light of the comments received, the Board finds that the burden on the
carriers of preparing the proposed one-time summary document would
outweigh the transparency benefit to be derived from it. That proposal,
therefore, will be omitted from the final rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Board also proposed to remove the current note to part
1241, which states that the forms for part 1241 are available on
request from the Board's Office of Economics (OE), and replace it
with a note to 49 CFR 1241.11 stating that the report forms
prescribed by section 1241.11 are available on the Board's website.
The Board will adopt this proposal, with a minor wording change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Ravnitzky's request for clarification that
termination of the PTC Supplement requirement does not limit the
Board's authority to request PTC-specific information or data in the
future, the Board notes that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11145(a)(1), the
Board may require rail carriers ``to file annual, periodic, and special
reports with the Board containing answers to questions asked by it''
and, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), the Board may obtain from
carriers ``information the Board decides is necessary to carry out
subtitle IV.''
Service Data Reporting
In the NPRM, the Board proposed weekly Class I carrier reporting of
two service metrics, OETA and ISP. The Board stated that, in its
experience, ``ongoing, standardized reporting of data allows the Board
to observe long-term trends and assess changes in service levels,
enabling it to take early action to address potential concerns.'' NPRM,
EP 787, slip op. at 4.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In Reciprocal Switching for Inadequate Service (Reciprocal
Switching), EP 711 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served April 30, 2024), the
Board adopted regulations to provide for the prescription of
reciprocal switching agreements to promote adequate rail service
through access to an additional line haul carrier. Under those
regulations, eligibility for prescription of a reciprocal switching
agreement was to be determined in part using objective performance
standards, including OETA- and ISP-based standards, which had
definitions of OETA and ISP that were similar, but not identical, to
those proposed in the NPRM. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit subsequently vacated the entire rule established in
Reciprocal Switching, which includes the reporting requirements, and
remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings. Grand
Trunk Corp. v. STB, 143 F.4th 741 (7th Cir. 2025). As the Board
noted in the NPRM, the Board will address the Court's remand in a
future decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OETA metric proposed by the Board would measure a carrier's
success in meeting its estimated arrival times for shipments. Id. at 5.
The Board proposed to define OETA as the estimated time of arrival that
a rail carrier provides when a shipper tenders the bill of lading or
when the rail carrier receives the shipment from an interchanging
carrier. Id. Under the Board's proposal, Class I carriers would report,
for shipments moving in manifest service, the percentage of weekly
shipments that were delivered to destination no later than 24 hours
after the OETA, out of all shipments in manifest service on the
[[Page 25143]]
carrier's system during each weekly reporting period. Id.
The ISP metric proposed by the Board would measure a rail carrier's
success in performing local placements (``spots'') and pick-ups
(``pulls'') of loaded railcars and unloaded private or shipper-leased
railcars at shippers' or receivers' facilities during planned service
windows. Id. at 6. Under the Board's proposal, the ISP metric would be
calculated by comparing the number of cars for which a carrier
successfully completed the requested spots or pulls during the planned
service windows, to the number of cars for which a shipper or receiver
requested spots or pulls by the applicable cut-off times for those
windows. Id. For example, if over the course of a reporting period, a
carrier pulls nine of 10 requested cars within the first service window
and pulls seven of 10 requested cars during a second service window,
the carrier's ISP metric would be 80%. Id. As proposed, the ISP metric
would not apply to unit trains or intermodal traffic.
The Board proposed that carriers would report ISP performance both
at the system level and at the operating division level. Id. For
reporting at the operating division level, carriers would establish
reporting regions using any geographic boundaries that they choose,
provided that they identify the boundaries as part of their reporting,
consistent with their business practices. Id.
Shipper interests broadly support the Board's proposed
implementation of OETA and ISP reporting requirements. AFPM states,
``[t]he Board's proposal to measure on-time performance through [OETA]
reporting will provide critical insight into rail service reliability
and shipment timeliness,'' and it describes ISP as ``a valuable tool
for tracking first-mile/last-mile service quality.'' (AFPM Comments 1.)
In their joint comments, FRCA and NCTA state that they ``strongly
support'' the Board's OETA and ISP proposals. (FRCA/NCTA Comments 1.)
NITL also supports the Board's proposal and advocates for
implementation of OETA and ISP metrics as part of the Board's
``objective in ensuring rail service reliability and accountability.''
(NITL Comments 2.) While carrier interests do not express support for
the Board's service metrics, they also do not object to implementation
of such metrics in general.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, CSXT states ``if the Board intends to adopt
additional service reporting obligations, it should pursue a
flexible reporting regime rather than a rigid regulatory approach.''
(CSXT Comments 2.) And CN notes that ``[i]f the Board adopts a rule
with services metrics,'' it agrees with certain aspects of the
Board's proposal. (CN Comments 1.) The views of both carriers are
discussed in more detail, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both shipper and rail carrier interests propose modifications to
the proposed metrics, which the Board will address below.
Flexible Reporting
Several rail carrier interests argue that the Board should adopt a
flexible approach that would allow rail carriers to gather data using
their existing data collection systems and protocols. For example, AAR
states:
[P]rescriptive reporting requirements are burdensome to the
railroads due to the differences in their data reporting systems and
operating requirements. The Board can achieve its goal of monitoring
service reliability by setting basic parameters and then allowing
carriers to report based on their existing systems, and in the
manner with which their customers are already acquainted.
(AAR Comments 6-7.) CSXT argues that ``the Board should refrain from
adopting rigidly `standardized reporting.' '' (CSXT Comments 4 (quoting
NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 4).) CSXT notes that the Board's service
metrics in 49 CFR part 1250 were ``developed based on interim reporting
in which railroads had reporting differences borne out of their
`disparate data-keeping systems' and `different railroad operating
practices,' among other things.'' (Id.) CSXT notes, for example, that
the Board's proposed OETA metric relies on a tender of a bill of
lading; however, according to CSXT, at least two Class I carriers do
not generate OETAs at tender of the bill of lading. (Id. at 5-6.) CSXT
argues that requiring that OETA be measured from issuance of the bill
of lading would require changes to these carriers' operating practices.
(Id. at 6.) CSXT therefore ``suggests that the Board set basic
parameters and allow carriers to report based on their existing
systems, so long as their methods are described in a methodology
document.'' (Id.)
In its reply, ACC opposes flexible OETA and ISP definitions,
arguing that the definition of service performance metrics must be
consistent across carriers. (ACC Reply 1-2.) It argues:
Without a consistent definition, the metrics lose meaning and
value to both policy makers and stakeholders seeking insights into
the state of railroad service performance. Furthermore, rail
customers and other stakeholders should not carry the burden of
reviewing multiple conflicting methodology documents in order to
understand what the metrics may mean for each individual railroad.
(Id.)
AFPM also argues for consistency in reporting, noting that
standardized metrics and clear calculation methodologies will allow for
comparison of performance results. (AFPM Comments 1-2.)
The Board will modify its proposal to allow for certain additional
flexibility in reporting, as described in this decision. The Board does
not believe it is necessary to compare carriers against each other in
order to achieve its goal of identifying service performance trends. A
more flexible approach, under which carriers could report their data in
a manner consistent with the manner in which they track it in the
ordinary course of business, would minimize the burden of reporting,
while still enabling the Board to monitor each carrier's performance
over time. In order to ensure that the Board and the public can
appropriately interpret the data submitted, each carrier will be
required to provide with its initial data submission a document
explaining its methodology for deriving its data. While each carrier
should strive to maintain consistency in its reporting methodology
across reporting periods to the maximum extent possible, the Board
recognizes that a carrier's reporting methodology may need to be
adjusted from time to time. Accordingly, carriers will be required to
update the Board of any changes to their methodology for reporting data
by filing a revised methodology document with the first data submission
that reflects that methodology change.\8\ The Board will post the
methodology documents on its website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As established at 49 CFR 1251.2, data will be reported to
the Board on a weekly basis, in a manner and form determined by the
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Board recognizes shipper interests' concerns that too
much flexibility could diminish the value of the metrics. Therefore,
the Board will include a provision at 49 CFR 1251.2 to explicitly
allow, to ensure data quality and utility, the Director of OE to
require a carrier to change its methodology and submit revised metrics
for past periods. For example, the Board may require changes if a
carrier's methodology substantially deviates from industry practice or
would produce misleading metrics.
Regardless of this provision, the Board recognizes that allowing
this flexibility may impose additional burdens upon stakeholders who
may want to review carriers' methodology documents in order to compare
carriers against each other. However, this burden is smaller than the
burden that would be associated with requiring
[[Page 25144]]
carriers' operating practices to conform to a uniform reporting
standard. Further, stakeholders will not need to familiarize themselves
with the nuances of each carrier's reporting in order to utilize the
data to monitor trends in the performance of individual carriers over
time.
Additionally, the Board notes that it will retain the authority to
audit carrier records in connection with OETA and ISP reporting
requirements. Carriers' OETA and ISP data collections will be governed
by 49 CFR 1220.6, which requires carriers to preserve certain records,
including ``[s]upporting data for reports filed with the Surface
Transportation Board'' for three years.
OETA
Establishment of OETA and Definition of ``Delivery''
In the NPRM, the Board proposed that OETAs would be established at
the time when the shipper tenders the bill of lading or when the rail
carrier receives the shipment from an interchanging carrier. NPRM, EP
787, slip op. at 12. Both AAR and CSXT express concerns about this
proposal. AAR states that bills of lading may contain errors that can
take time to resolve. (AAR Comments 8.) Therefore, AAR proposes that
the Board ``should base OETA on the generation of the trip plan--which
for some carriers may be the waybill creation event while for others it
may be the time the shipper formally releases a car to the railroad.''
(Id.) Similarly, CSXT notes that its own systems only issue a trip plan
upon creation of a valid waybill and argues that the OETA should be
established at the time of waybill creation, rather than at the time
the bill of lading is issued. (CSXT Comments 6, 9.) CSXT further states
that it ``recognizes that carriers with different operating practices
may have a different view'' and that ``[t]he Board need not make a
determination on this granular issue because the Board can achieve its
goal of monitoring trends without favoring one operating practice over
another.'' (Id. at 6.) CSXT suggests that the Board define OETA as
``the estimated time of arrival that the rail carrier provides when a
trip plan is created (typically either upon tender of the bill of
lading or creation of the waybill).'' (Id. at 10.)
ACC objects to AAR's and CSXT's calls for revisions to the Board's
proposed OETA definition. It argues that ``shippers base their planning
on the OETA provided when they submit the bill of lading'' and that
``[t]he value of the OETA metric is diminished if the railroad is free
to change it until the trip plan is issued.'' (ACC Reply 3.)
In light of the comments received, the Board will revise its
definition of OETA in 49 CFR 1251.1 to state that OETA means:
[T]he estimated time of arrival that the rail carrier provides
when the shipper releases the shipment with all necessary and
customary documentation or, in the case of an interline movement,
when a shipment is reported delivered in interchange and confirmed
to have physically been delivered to the receiving carrier with
necessary and customary documentation for furtherance.
This change will allow carriers to continue to generate OETAs in
accordance with their existing practices, and provide the carriers
latitude to change their practices in the future. It is also intended
to clarify the conditions that must be met before carriers will be
expected to generate OETAs for movements beginning with either shipper
release or interchange from another carrier. In either case, for a
carrier's OETA to be reliable, the carrier must have access to both the
railcar itself, and its necessary and customary documentation. There
may be ambiguity or disagreement between shipper and carrier, or
between two carriers at interchange, about the timing of events which
satisfy these conditions. The Board encourages parties to regularly and
jointly review OETAs and their supporting data to ensure they are
produced promptly from accurate inputs, and encourages parties to
notify the Board of protracted or material disputes regarding OETA
generation.
The Board does not find that the revised definition of OETA adopted
here would diminish the value of the OETA metric. Under the revised
definition, the OETA would still be established at an early stage of a
shipment (or interchange), and under 49 CFR 1251.2(a)(1), for purposes
of calculating the OETA metric, a carrier is not permitted to change
the OETA after that OETA has been communicated to the shipper, except
when the change is made in response to a shipper's request or a
shipper's failure to make cars available for pick-up. And, as noted
above, the Director of OE will be delegated authority to require
carriers to revise the methodology they use to generate reporting,
including the OETA metric, in order to ensure data quality and utility,
as required.
CSXT also argues that, for interline movements, OETA should be
based on an estimated time of arrival generated when ``the rail carrier
receives the shipment from an interchanging carrier . . . . as more
fully described in a methodology document.'' (CSXT Comments 10-11.)
CSXT argues that ``[t]here are significant technical complexities in
determining the precise moment of interchange between railroads that do
not have visibility into each other's data'' and the flexible approach
it proposes would accommodate these issues and accommodate carriers'
individual data systems. (Id.)
The revised definition of OETA, discussed above, responds to CSXT's
concerns by making explicit that a carrier generating an OETA must have
access to the railcar itself and its necessary and customary
documentation. The Board recognizes that rail carriers' reports of the
times of interchange delivery and receipt frequently differ. The
revision to the definition of OETA is not intended nor expected to
resolve such differences in all instances.
The Board has refrained from establishing standards for the maximum
intervals of time between reports of interchange delivery and receipt,
between shippers' release of shipments and rail carriers' pulls from
shippers, and between satisfaction of the conditions needed to generate
OETAs and the carriers' generation and communication of OETAs. The
Board nevertheless expects carriers to make reasonable efforts to pull
released railcars from shipper facilities, pull or receive interchange
traffic, and to promptly generate OETAs when the necessary conditions
have been met. The Board retains authority to revise the metrics and
reporting requirements adopted here in order to address systemic issues
that undermine the purpose of this rule.
The Board will simplify the definition of ``delivery'' as it
relates to interline movements, to provide that ``a shipment will be
deemed to be delivered to the receiving carrier or its agent or
affiliated company when the shipment is offered for interchange.'' The
Board will also modify the definition of ``time of arrival'' to mean
``the time that a shipment is delivered to the designated
destination.'' These revisions provide for flexibility and reflect that
carriers may use different measures and tools to determine when a
delivery is made, and to determine if it is completed within 24 hours
of an OETA. The definition of ``receipt of shipment'' has also been
removed from the regulations to allow this flexibility. Carriers should
describe their methodology for determining time of receipt in their
methodology documents. Again, the Board retains authority to revise the
metrics and reporting requirements adopted here in
[[Page 25145]]
order to address systemic issues that undermine the purpose of this
rule.
Early Deliveries
In the NPRM, the Board proposed that any shipments arriving before
its OETA, including those arriving more than 24 hours early, would be
counted as on-time deliveries. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 5 n.6. All
rail carrier interests filing comments support the Board's proposal.
(See, e.g., AAR Comments 7; AAR Reply 4; CN Comments 4-5; CSXT Comments
7.)
Several shipper interests, however, oppose the proposal. ACC argues
that ``unexpected early deliveries can also cause significant impacts
for rail customers [and] can congest a customer facility with railcars,
creating operational disruptions that are comparable to those resulting
from late deliveries.'' (ACC Comments 3.) Trinidad Benham also argues
that early deliveries can lead to problems that are similar to those
caused by late deliveries, including risks of demurrage and increased
production costs. (Trinidad Benham Comments 1.)
USDA states that ``[c]ars that are delivered too early are . . .
problematic, as a shipper likely has not staged resources early enough
and must now make costly adjustments.'' (USDA Reply 2.) It argues that
both late and early deliveries ``represent differences from plans and
expectations; they both impose costs.'' (Id. at 3.)
The Board will implement the proposal from its NPRM, under which
cars arriving more than 24 hours in advance of the OETA are considered
on-time deliveries. While the Board recognizes that early deliveries
can cause operational difficulties for shippers, the goal of the
service metrics adopted here is to monitor overall railroad service
reliability. To the extent that shipments arrive early, this is not as
indicative of rail network problems as late deliveries and, therefore,
early and late deliveries should not be measured as effectively
equivalent. Moreover, the Board finds that network problems would be
adequately captured by measuring only late deliveries as part of the
OETA metrics. The Board notes, however, that its treatment of early
deliveries as on time in this network-focused reporting metric does not
mean that early deliveries might not be relevant to relief sought in a
particular case. See Pol'y Statement on Demurrage & Accessorial Rules &
Charges, FD 757, slip op. at 12 (STB served Apr. 30, 2020)
(``[B]unching should be addressed on a case-by-case basis in order to
permit the Board to properly consider all relevant circumstances
pertaining to an assessment of demurrage.'')
Deliveries More Than 24 Hours After OETA
Under the Board's proposal, in order for a shipment to be
considered ``on-time'' for purposes of the OETA reporting requirement,
a carrier must deliver a shipment no later than 24 hours after the
OETA. AAR argues that ``OETA should be measured based on shipments that
were delivered to the designated destination no later than the end of
the calendar day following the OETA.'' (AAR Comments 8.) In support of
its position, AAR argues:
Railroad customers are generally focused on what day their
shipments are delivered, not whether those shipments are delivered
within 24 hours of the specific hour/minute of the carrier's
original estimated time of arrival. In addition, the railroad
industry runs by service days, not by specific service hours. Thus,
revising the OETA metric this way and treating deliveries that occur
by the end of the calendar day following the OETA as successes is
better aligned with the industry's service schedules and customer
expectations.
(Id. at 8-9.)
Shipper interests take an opposing view. ACC states that, contrary
to AAR's arguments, ``ACC members seek certainty on car deliveries and
pick-up times and plan their operations accordingly.'' (ACC Reply 2.)
ACC argues that ``AAR's proposal would substantially extend the period
that is considered on-time delivery,'' and notes that under the AAR's
proposed next-day standard, a car that is delivered 40 hours after OETA
could be treated as on time. (Id.) ACC states that ``loosening of the
24-hour standard . . . merely serves to bolster the appearance of on-
time performance.'' (Id.) FRCA and NCTA also object to AAR's proposal,
stating, ``[a]dding an extra day grace period before a movement is
considered late is simply another means of lowering the bar and making
the data less informative.'' (FRCA/NCTA Comments 2.) FRCA and NCTA also
question whether, under the proposed modification, the grace period
could be extended beyond the ``next calendar day'' in the event that a
carrier does not provide weekend service to a shipper. (Id.)
The Board will implement its original proposal. A shipment that
arrives more than 24 hours after its OETA will not be considered on
time. AAR's proposal represents a significant step away from the
Board's proposal, and it appears that it could nearly double the window
in which a shipment could be considered on time for OETA purposes under
some circumstances. While OETA is only intended to provide a general
indicator of rail carriers' overall network health, and while a grace
period following an OETA is appropriate, a grace period that could
allow a shipment arriving nearly 48 hours after OETA to be reported as
on time would not adequately serve the purposes of this data
collection.
Exclusions From OETA Reporting
Rail carrier interests propose a number of events that should
trigger exclusions from a carrier's OETA metric reporting, including
bad order cars, cars held for customs paperwork, cars held because of
an embargo, or cars delayed by acts of God or other events outside the
carrier's control (e.g., a line outage). AAR argues that if a car is
delayed due to an event that occurs in transit and the delay ``is
outside the rail carrier's control,'' then that car should be excluded
for purposes of calculating the OETA metric. (AAR Comments 9.) Shipper
interests, however, support a narrower range of exclusions. (See AAC
Reply 2-3; Ravnitzky Comments 2.)
Both rail carrier and shipper interests support an OETA exclusion
for bad order cars. (AAR Comments 9; CSXT Comments 8; Ravnitzky
Comments 2; ACC Reply 2.) Bad order cars are cars that must undergo
repair before completing their trips due to mechanical, safety, or
structural problems. This exclusion is appropriate, as bad order cars
are rarely indicative of overall rail network performance. The Board
will therefore exclude bad order cars from OETA reporting.
Additionally, for clarity, the Board will revise its proposed
definitions to define bad order cars as cars that must undergo repair
before completing their trips due to mechanical, safety, or structural
problems.
AAR and ACC both support the exclusion of cars that are held for
issues related to customs paperwork, (AAR Comments 9; ACC Reply 2),
while CN argues that cars that move cross-border should be excluded
entirely, (CN Comments 5). CN further argues that, because the Board's
goal relates to monitoring of traffic within the United States, taking
into consideration traffic movements that occur partially, or in some
instances, mostly outside the United States, would not fulfill the
Board's aims. (Id.) The Board will exclude cross-border traffic from
OETA reporting. Cross-border shipments can be unexpectedly delayed at,
or near, border crossings. For example, U.S. customs authorities may
order that shipments be set out of trains for inspection or otherwise
await clearance for onward movement.
[[Page 25146]]
AAR proposes exclusions for cars held due to embargos and cars
impacted by acts of God or other events ``like a line outage outside
the rail carrier's control.'' (AAR Comments 9.) CSXT also argues that
cars impacted by embargoes or other events outside a carrier's control
should be excluded from OETA reporting. (CSXT Comments 8.) ACC,
however, objects to excluding embargo-related delays and shipments
impacted by acts of God. (ACC Reply 2-3.) According to ACC, the
``imposition of an embargo does not signify that a service failure is
beyond the railroad's control.'' (ACC Reply 2.) ACC argues that,
``underlying conditions leading to past embargoes have been created or
exacerbated by the railroad's own management decisions, including
actions to cut jobs, mothball equipment, and delay infrastructure
investments.'' (Id.) ACC further argues that ``[e]xempting such events
from the service metrics creates a perverse incentive for railroads to
use--and misuse--embargoes to manage network congestion.'' (Id. at 2-
3.) Regarding exclusions for acts of God, ACC acknowledges that
``weather and other disruptive events may be outside of the carrier's
control,'' but it argues that carriers are ``responsible for
maintaining network resilience and capacity to respond to such
events.'' (Id. at 3.) ACC further argues that excluding acts of God
would diminish the accuracy and utility of the data. (Id.)
The Board finds that cars delayed due to acts of God and embargoes
should not be excluded from OETA reporting. Allowing carriers to
exclude embargo or weather event-impacted traffic from OETA reporting
could provide a misleading view of railroad performance. For example,
if in the aftermath of a disruptive weather event, railroads excluded
impacted traffic from OETA reporting, OETA reporting data could create
the appearance of service reliability, while masking widespread
disruptions across the network. Additionally, the term ``acts of God''
is broad and could result in the exclusion of a significant number of
movements. Exceptions for embargoes and acts of God therefore could
undermine the reliability and usefulness of reported data as an
indicator of overall rail network performance.
The Board will, however, encourage railroads to report extenuating
circumstances that have led or may lead to reduced performance,
including weather-related events, in cover letters accompanying their
data filings in this docket. This will advance the Board's objective of
monitoring the overall health of the national rail network and will
help the Board recognize any unusual circumstances that may degrade
rail performance. The Board may also request information from carriers
regarding the causes underlying any notable performance deterioration,
when appropriate. See 49 U.S.C. 11145.
AAR also asks the Board to clarify what constitutes a ``change to
the original trip plan made by the shipper.'' (AAR Comments 9 (citing
NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 13).) AAR argues that this category may
include shipments impacted by customer re-routes, as well as ``customer
exceptions,'' which may include situations in which a customer notifies
the carrier that its cars are not actually available to be pulled, or
if a customer has left blue flags \9\ in place, thereby preventing
movement of cars. (AAR Comments 9.) CSXT also argues that OETA failures
stemming from customer-requested reroutes or diversions, and other
customer exceptions, including blue flags, should be excluded from OETA
reporting. (CSXT Comments 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Blue flags, or blue signals, are blue-painted signs that are
placed on or in front of rolling equipment when such equipment may
not be moved or coupled onto. See 49 CFR 218.23. Blue flags provide
protection for workers who may be working on or near equipment, and
they must be displayed by each craft or group of workers prior to
their going on, under, or between equipment. Id. Blue flags may only
be removed by the same craft or group that displayed them. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board will clarify that a change to the original trip plan made
by the shipper includes customer re-routes, diversions, and other
customer-requested exceptions. Such events may result in establishment
of a new trip plan due to customer choice, and treating impacted
shipments as late would not accurately reflect railroad performance. In
addition to OETA changes made at the request of the customer (which
include customer reroutes and diversions), the Board will allow
carriers to change an OETA when a shipper fails to make a car available
for carrier pick-up, for example, when the shipper has left blue flags
in place. The Board has revised the text of 49 CFR 1251.2(a)(1) to
reflect this.
The Board will also clarify that if a shipper is unable to accept a
car when a carrier attempts to make delivery and the car is
constructively placed, that constructive placement is considered a
``delivery,'' as defined in 49 CFR 1251.1, for purposes of calculating
the OETA metric.
Exclusion of Unit Trains From OETA Reporting
In the NPRM, the Board proposed excluding unit trains from OETA
reporting. Rail carrier interests support the proposed exclusion, while
shipper interests do not.
AAR notes that unit train traffic has many distinguishing
characteristics from manifest traffic, which is subject to OETA
reporting requirements under the proposed rule. (AAR Comments 5.) It
states that unlike trains carrying manifest traffic, not all unit
trains have schedules, meaning that OETA reporting would not be
pertinent. (Id.) According to AAR, ``for some railroads, the number of
unit trains delivered is based on the shipper's monthly demand, as
opposed to a plan for delivery in a particular day's service window.''
(Id. at 6.) CN also voices its support for the Board's proposed OETA
exclusion for unit train traffic, noting that the Board recognizes that
some railroads, including CN, do not produce trip plans for unit
trains. (CN Comments 5.)
Some shipper interests, however, call for including unit train
traffic in OETA reporting. NGFA disagrees with railroads' contentions
that unit trains do not have schedules or trip plans. (NGFA Comments
3.) NGFA disputes ``the view that shuttle/unit trains do not have the
same need to [reach destinations] within specified service windows
while manifest trains do.'' (Id.) It further argues that while unit
train trip plans ``may not take the same form as a manifest train trip
plan,'' all six Class I carriers calculate ``an anticipated transit
time and arrival date, the latter of which is supplied to the
customer.'' (Id.) It states that such plans ``are a necessity for the
railroads to manage their capacity and system use.'' (Id. at 3-4.)
Similarly, in its reply, USDA argues, ``[t]he Board's decision to
exclude unit trains stems from inconsistencies between railroads in how
they produce trip plans. However, the railroads do give shippers
estimated times of arrival for their unit trains.'' (USDA Reply 2
(citing NGFA Comments 3).) NGFA also states that ``the failure of a
rail carrier to meet its [unit train] service representations to a
shipper can result in proportionally greater harm to the shipper/
receiver and the shipper/receiver's customers than manifest traffic.''
(NGFA Comments 3.) PRFBA and NITL also support including unit trains in
OETA reporting. (PRFBA Comments 3; NITL Comments 2.) \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FRCA and NCTA express concerns about unit train service,
stating that unit train service ``often suffers from irregular and
inconsistent times that adversely affects members' operations and
economics.'' (FRCA/NCTA Comments 5.) They argue that the Board
should require carriers to report additional metrics regarding unit
trains. (Id. at 5-6.) These requests are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25147]]
While the Board recognizes the interest in additional unit train
reporting, it will not include unit train traffic in its OETA
measurements. As noted by AAR, some carriers do not produce unit train
trip plans. As a result, requiring carriers to include unit train
operations in their OETA reporting would impose an additional burden on
carriers that do not currently prepare unit train trip plans. The Board
is disinclined to impose that additional burden, particularly given
that unit train performance is already captured by a range of metrics
currently reported to the Board by carriers in accordance with 49 CFR
1250.2. Class I carriers must report weekly averages for various types
of unit trains, including grain, for the following metrics: train
speeds, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(1); dwell time (the time period from release
of a unit train at origin until actual movement by the receiving
carrier), 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(4); and number of unit trains holding per
day sorted by train type, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(5). And, under 49 CFR
1250.2(a)(10), Class I carriers operating a grain shuttle program must
report to the Board each month the average grain shuttle turns per
month, for the total system and by region, versus planned turns per
month, for the total system and by region. Moreover, USDA's
Agricultural Rail Service Metrics Dashboard displays, in both graphic
and numerical formats, a range of data related to the movement of
agricultural products by rail, drawn from existing Board data
collections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The dashboard can be accessed at <a href="https://agtransport.usda.gov/stories/s/Agricultural-Rail-Service-Metrics-Dashboard/jxpf-zf6y/">https://agtransport.usda.gov/stories/s/Agricultural-Rail-Service-Metrics-Dashboard/jxpf-zf6y/</a> (last visited Apr. 28, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the differences between manifest and unit train
operations, and because data that provides a clear picture regarding
unit train operations is collected or conveyed elsewhere, the Board
will continue to exclude shipments moving in unit train service from
the OETA reporting metric, as proposed by the NPRM. To the extent that
carriers may already provide supplemental information or data to
shippers or trade associations regarding unit train performance, they
are encouraged to share this information with the Board. The carriers
may provide this information in cover letters accompanying their data
filings in this docket, and the Board will consider developing a filing
template that allows carriers to voluntarily provide this information.
The Board retains authority to address unit train operations reporting
should systemic issues come to the Board's attention that undermine the
purpose of this rule.
Exclusion of Intermodal Trains From OETA Reporting
In its NPRM, the Board also proposed excluding intermodal trains
from OETA reporting. Rail carrier interests support this proposal. AAR
argues that it is unnecessary to include intermodal traffic in OETA
reporting and that ``given the interconnected nature of the network, if
there is a network-wide service issue, a properly designed manifest
traffic metric will likely reflect it.'' (AAR Reply 2.) CN and CSXT
also voice support for excluding intermodal trains from OETA reporting.
(CN Comments 1, 6; CSXT Comments 5.)
FRCA and NCTA argue in favor of carriers including intermodal
trains in their reporting. They contend that the Board has not
justified its proposal to exclude intermodal traffic from OETA
reporting. (FRCA/NCTA Comments 5.) FRCA and NCTA also argue that the
extent to which railroads fail to achieve a high level of intermodal
performance is a sign of railroad operating health. (Id.) FRCA/NCTA and
NITL also support including intermodal trains in OETA reporting. (FRCA/
NCTA Comments 3; NITL Comments 2.)
The Board will continue to exclude intermodal trains from OETA
reporting requirements, as proposed in the NPRM. As discussed above,
the Board's objective underlying this rulemaking is to ensure that the
Board and its stakeholders can effectively monitor the health of the
national rail network. AAR is correct that if network-wide service
problems exist, they are likely to also be reflected by deteriorating
manifest performance. Additionally, the Board recognizes that unlike
manifest traffic, which is generally picked up at origin and delivered
at destination, movement of intermodal traffic involves intermediate
transfers between rail and other transport modes. Finally, as with unit
train performance, intermodal train performance is already captured by
a range of metrics currently reported to the Board by carriers in
accordance with 49 CFR 1250.2,\12\ and it is the Board's understanding
that some carriers share information about intermodal train performance
with shippers. As with unit trains, carriers are welcome to share this
information with the Board in cover letters accompanying their data
filings in this docket, and the Board will consider incorporating a
voluntary component to any filing template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Under existing regulations, Class I carriers must report
the following information: weekly system-average train speeds for
intermodal trains, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(1)(i), the weekly average number
of intermodal trains holding per day, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(5), and the
weekly average of loaded and empty intermodal cars, operating in
normal movement and billed to an origin or destination, which have
not moved in 48 hours or more, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISP
ISP Reporting on a Per-Car Basis
In the NPRM, the Board proposed that the ISP metric would measure a
rail carrier's success in performing local spots and pulls of loaded
railcars and unloaded private or shipper-leased railcars at shippers'
or receivers' facilities during a planned service window. NPRM, EP 787,
slip op. at 6. The Board noted in the NPRM that this ISP metric
differed from the ISP performance standard previously adopted in
Reciprocal Switching, which measured ISP based upon the proportion of
service windows in which the carrier successfully spotted or pulled all
requested traffic. See Reciprocal Switching, EP 711 (Sub-No. 2), slip
op. at 52. The Board observed that the per-car ISP measurement proposed
in the NPRM would provide more informative data about each carrier's
overall performance in spotting and pulling cars within designated
service windows than the ISP standard adopted in Reciprocal Switching,
in light of the Board's purposes in the NPRM: monitoring local service
reliability across a carrier's rail network and at the operating
division level, and observing changes in service levels, rather than
setting a standard for use in individual reciprocal switching
proceedings. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 6 n.7.
All rail carrier interests filing comments support the Board's
proposal. AAR states that ``the Board's newly proposed ISP metric fixes
one of the more prominent problems with the ISP performance standard in
Reciprocal Switching.'' (AAR Comments 9.) CN states that it ``agrees
with the Board that the per-car measurement would provide more
informative data about each carrier's overall performance in spotting
and pulling cars within designated service windows.'' (CN Comment 6.)
And CSXT describes the per-car measurement as ``a more meaningful and
accurate measurement.'' (CSXT Comments 12.)
FRCA and NCTA argue that the Board should use a per-window basis
instead of a per-car basis. (FRCA/NCTA Reply 3.) According to FRCA and
NCTA, the per-car approach could lead to a ``perverse outcome'' for a
shipper that, for example, expects to receive three cars during a
service window, but only receives two. (Id.)
[[Page 25148]]
The Board will adopt the per-car approach, as proposed in the NPRM.
As explained in the NPRM, given the purpose here of monitoring local
service reliability broadly across a carrier's network and at the
operating division level, examining the proportion of timely individual
spots and pulls across a carrier's system and divisions, as proposed in
the NPRM, will provide more informative data about each carrier's
overall performance and will better capture overall trends than
examining service windows on an all-or-nothing basis would. See NPRM,
EP 787, slip op. at 6 n.7.
Defining ISP Service Windows
Multiple shipper interests question how ISP service windows will be
established for purposes of ISP reporting. TFI advocates that a
``window's duration [should] comply with the carrier's established
protocols, not to exceed 12 hours.'' (TFI Comments 3.) AFPM asks the
Board to require that ISP service windows ``are jointly established and
verified by both the railroad and the customer to prevent unilateral
changes that artificially inflate compliance rates.'' (AFPM Comments 4-
5.) ACC takes a similar position, proposing that the Board should
establish the definition of ``planned service windows'' to require that
they are jointly established and verified by both the railroad and the
customer. (ACC Comments 3-4.) It expresses concern that ``the ISP
metric could be compromised if railroads are permitted to unilaterally
expand service windows to artificially bolster success rates for this
metric.'' (Id. at 3.) In its reply, ACC reaffirms its position, stating
that ``the service window should reflect the needs of the shipper as
well as the railroad.'' (ACC Reply 3.)
While rail carriers did not reply to these comments, AAR proposes
that railroads should be permitted to ``define and explain their
metrics in a methodology document.'' (AAR Comments 7.) AAR further
advocates modifying the proposed service window definition to contain
``less prescriptive language,'' by removing the requirement that, when
making a service window available, a carrier must provide ``reasonable
advance notice to the shipper or receiver.'' (Id. at 11.) It proposes
that the Board modify the definition to provide, in part: ``A service
window must be made available by a rail carrier in accordance with the
carrier's established protocol.'' (Id.)
The Board will not modify the definition of service window in
response to comments by shipper interests.\13\ The changes suggested by
TFI, AFPM, and ACC would impose a substantive obligation on how
carriers establish their service windows, which exceeds the scope of
this proceeding. However, because ISP service windows and standards
vary widely across carriers and their individual customers, the Board
will require carriers to describe, in their methodology documents, how
they establish and modify their service windows. The requirement that
carriers provide this information in their methodology documents also
addresses shipper concerns that carriers could ``artificially bolster
success rates.'' (See ACC Comments 3.) Additionally, under the
delegation described above, the Director of OE may require revision of
carrier service window methodologies to improve data quality and
utility. With respect to AAR's proposal to modify the service window
definition by eliminating the ``reasonable advance notice''
requirement, AAR has not shown this requirement to be unnecessarily
proscriptive or otherwise unreasonable, so it will be retained in the
final rule. (See AAR Comments 11.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In the definition of ``service window'' that the Board will
adopt, ``shipments'' is replaced with ``railcars.'' This reflects
that spots and pulls during service windows are not limited to
``shipments,'' as shipment is defined as ``a loaded railcar that is
designated in a bill of lading.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusions From ISP Reporting
In the NPRM, the Board proposed excluding from ISP calculations
missed spots and pulls caused by shippers. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at
14. According to AAR, ``if a shipper requests more cars than it has the
capacity to handle, such circumstances should be considered a customer-
caused miss for the purpose of proposed [49 CFR] 1251.2(b)(1)(iv).''
(AAR Comments 10.) ACC, in its reply, supports AAR's request to exclude
cars that a shipper cannot accept because it lacks the required
capacity. (ACC Reply 2.) The Board will adopt this proposal to exclude
from ISP reporting missed spots and pulls caused by shippers. This
exclusion is appropriate because a shipper's inability to accept cars
for delivery in a timely manner due to its own capacity constraints may
often not be an accurate reflection of carrier performance.
The Board also proposed excluding railroad-supplied unloaded, or
empty, cars from ISP calculations. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 12. AAR
argues that carriers should have the option to include railroad-
supplied empty cars in ISP reporting, noting that some railroads
include those cars in their current ISP calculations while others do
not. (AAR Comments 11.) In their reply, FRCA and NCTA object to the
exclusion of railroad-supplied empty cars from ISP reporting, stating
that ``[w]ithout empties to load, there will be missing originations
and the exclusion of empties requested by the AAR could conceal a major
gap in first-mile service.'' (FRCA/NCTA Reply 2-3.)
The Board will revise its proposed ISP definition by removing the
language stating that railroad-supplied unloaded cars are to be
excluded from ISP calculations. While, according to AAR, some carriers
do not include such cars in their ISP calculations, the Board
recognizes that timely spots and pulls of these cars remain critical to
shipper operations. A carrier's failure to spot or pull these cars upon
a shipper's request could significantly impact shipper operations by,
for example, causing congestion at shipper facilities or downstream
material shortages and disruptions for other shippers awaiting
delivery. As a result, carriers will be required to include all
railroad-supplied cars in ISP reporting. The Board has revised the
definition of ``industry spot and pull'' in 49 CFR 1251.1 to reflect
that all manifest traffic will be included in ISP metrics.
Additionally, AAR proposes exclusions resulting from cars delayed
by lawful embargoes and cars delayed by acts of God, arguing that these
events are outside a carrier's control. (AAR Comments 10; see also CSXT
Comments 12 (arguing that the proposed regulations should be revised to
account for events outside a carrier's control, such as weather or
embargoes).) As described above in the Exclusions from OETA Reporting
section, ACC objects, arguing that such exclusions would exclude events
that are indicative of service quality. (ACC Reply 2-3.)
The Board will reject AAR's proposal to exclude missed spots and
pulls that result from embargoes and acts of God. As with regard to
AAR's proposal to exclude traffic impacted by these events from the
OETA metric, exclusions of embargoes and acts of God from ISP
calculations similarly would undermine the reliability and usefulness
of the data. As previously noted, the Board will, however, encourage
railroads to report extenuating circumstances that have led or may lead
to reduced performance, including weather-related events, in cover
letters accompanying their data filings.
AAR also proposes to exclude from ISP reporting cars ordered in
following constructive placement. (AAR Comments 10.) AAR argues that
constructively placed cars are stopped short of delivery to a customer
facility
[[Page 25149]]
due to customer-caused exceptions and therefore such cars should be
excluded. (Id.)
The Board will reject this proposal and clarify the treatment of
constructively placed cars in the ISP metric. First, AAR's proposal
would exclude all traffic destined for ``closed-gate'' shipper
facilities from the ISP metric. Cars destined for such facilities are,
by plan, usually constructively placed pending shipper requests for
delivery. While it would not be appropriate to measure ISP for these
cars based upon the time of constructive placement, these cars are
subsequently ordered in by shippers and are at that time scheduled for
delivery during an appropriate service window. Therefore,
constructively placed cars destined for closed-gate facilities will be
included in ISP reporting.
Second, the Board will clarify the treatment of cars destined for
``spot on arrival'' or ``open-gate'' facilities (locations where cars
may be spotted without placement instructions) that are initially
constructively placed due to the receiving shipper's inability to
accept them at the time the rail carrier attempts to make delivery. The
constructive placement of such cars would not count as failed spots
under 49 CFR 1251.2(b)(1)(iv), which provides that, if a shipper causes
a carrier to miss a spot or a pull during a planned service window,
that missed spot or pull should be excluded from calculation of the ISP
metric. However, pursuant to 49 CFR 1251.2(b)(1)(i), such cars, once
constructively placed, should be included in ISP calculations based on
the time that they are ordered in.
Third, the Board also clarifies that if a carrier fails to spot a
car within its assigned service window following constructive
placement, the shipper may order the car for delivery during a
subsequent service window in which ISP will again be measured. This
includes cars that have been constructively placed for any reason and
that are destined to either closed-gate or open-gate facilities.
Therefore, ISP metrics may reflect multiple data points for a single
railcar. The Board finds that this approach will best reflect service
levels and performance. The Board will modify 49 CFR 1251.2(b)(1)(i)-
(ii) to reflect these clarifications.
AAR further proposes excluding bad order cars from ISP reporting.
(AAR Comments 10.) No commenters objected to this proposal. The Board
will adopt this exclusion because, as noted above with respect to OETA,
bad order cars generally do not reflect a carrier's overall service
levels or network performance. The Board further clarifies that this
exclusion will only apply to cars placed in bad order status after
their arrival at the serving yard.
Finally, AAR proposes revising 49 CFR 1251.2(b)(2) to provide that
``the ISP metric does not include any manifest traffic moved to any
third-party facilities such as storage facilities.'' (AAR Comments 9.)
No other parties addressed this proposal. The Board will not adopt
AAR's proposal. AAR does not define ``third-party facilities'' or
provide examples of the types of facilities that would be covered under
its proposed exclusion. Nor does it explain why such an exclusion is
necessary.
Exclusion of Unit Trains From ISP Reporting
In the NPRM, the Board proposed excluding unit trains from ISP
reporting. AAR supports this proposal, arguing that ``the Board
appropriately recognizes that unit trains are not spotted and pulled in
the [same] manner as manifest traffic; therefore, a metric like ISP
would simply not make sense.'' (AAR Comments 5-6; see also CSXT
Comments 12; CN Comments 6.) NITL and PRFBA support including unit
trains in ISP reporting. (NITL Comments 2, PRFBA Comments 3.)
The Board will exclude shipments moving in unit train service from
ISP reporting, as proposed in the NPRM. As NGFA observes, unit trains
``do not typically have a planned spot [and] pull time.'' (NGFA
Comments 4.) Further, as discussed above, data that provides a clear
picture regarding unit train operations is collected or conveyed
elsewhere.
Exclusion of Intermodal Trains From ISP Reporting
In the NPRM, the Board proposed excluding intermodal trains from
ISP reporting. AAR supports this proposal, noting that the spotting and
pulling of intermodal traffic ``does not occur in the same way as
manifest traffic.'' (AAR Comments 6.) It notes that ``containers are
unloaded at an intermodal facility and then either placed on a chassis
or stacked at the facility as they await pick up from a truck.'' (Id.)
It therefore argues that reporting of intermodal traffic for ISP
reporting purposes is not useful to the Board. (Id.) NITL indicates
support for including intermodal trains in ISP reporting. (NITL
Comments 2.)
The Board agrees with AAR that spotting and pulling of intermodal
traffic is different from manifest traffic. Transfers of traffic
between a rail carrier and another mode of transportation do not
involve local service in the same manner as manifest traffic does,
which means that this data would not be similarly useful as a
reflection of carrier performance. And, as noted above, intermodal
train performance is already captured by a range of metrics currently
reported to the Board by carriers in accordance with 49 CFR 1250.2. The
Board therefore will exclude intermodal trains from ISP reporting.
Additional Issues
Exclusion of Automotive Traffic From OETA/ISP Calculations
AAR asks the Board to clarify that the OETA and ISP metrics will
not apply ``to cars carrying automotive products.'' (AAR Comments 6.)
AAR notes that some railroads include automotive products in manifest
traffic, which is a defined term in the Board's proposed rule, while
others do not. (Id.)
The Board will not make the requested clarification. Rather, as
discussed above, each carrier will report to the Board in accordance
with its standard business and data collection practices, and will be
required to explain those practices in their methodology documents
submitted to the Board. The Board will require carriers to identify, as
part of their methodology documents, the Standard Transportation
Commodity Code (STCC) of any automotive traffic that moves in manifest
service and is included in OETA and ISP reporting. Additionally, the
Board notes that to the extent that automotive traffic moves via
intermodal service, such traffic would not be included in OETA or ISP
reporting, as the OETA and ISP metrics will not include intermodal
traffic.
Disaggregation of Data
AFPM argues that reporting ``should be granular--broken out by
region, terminal, and corridor--to reveal localized bottlenecks often
masked by system averages.'' (AFPM Comments 2.) USDA also supports more
granular reporting of OETA data, noting that ``[s]ervice issues unique
to a corridor or to a commodity can get washed out in system level
averages.'' (USDA Reply 2.) USDA argues that the additional burden of
disaggregating OETA data at the operating division level would be
minimal. (Id.)
The Board will not require disaggregated reporting of OETA data by
region and corridor. OETA is an end-to-end metric, and any particular
shipment may traverse multiple corridors and regions. It therefore
would be impractical to require separation of performance
geographically by trip segment. However, as discussed above, the Board
is adopting a requirement that
[[Page 25150]]
carriers report ISP data on an operating division level, in addition to
a system-wide level. The Board finds this level of disaggregated ISP
reporting sufficiently captures the localized data necessary to measure
carriers' success performing local spots and pulls without placing a
significant burden on carriers with respect to the ISP metric. Further,
OETA and ISP are intended to provide indicators of overall network
health and ``local service reliability across a carrier's rail
network,'' rather than indicate service quality experienced by any
particular individual shipper. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 6 n.7. This
minimally burdensome rule is tailored to that objective.
References to Class I Carriers
Ravnitzky proposes adding ``Class I'' to the introductory paragraph
of 49 CFR 1251.2 so that it reads, in relevant part: ``All Class I rail
carriers shall report to the Board on a weekly basis, in a manner and
form determined by the Board, the data described in this section.''
(Ravnitzky Comments 1.) He argues that the current wording could be
read to require every carrier to report and that this change will
eliminate the need for a reader to reference the definitions section of
the proposed regulations to understand that the regulation pertains
only to Class I carriers. (Id.)
In response to Ravnitzky's comment, the Board will remove the
definition of ``Rail carrier(s)'' that was in proposed 49 CFR 1251.1
and will instead add the words ``Class I,'' where appropriate, to
references to ``carrier,'' ``rail carrier,'' and ``railroad'' in 49 CFR
part 1251. These changes will promote clarity and consistency with
other Board regulations.
Data Formatting and Submission
AFPM recommends that all data submitted in accordance with the
proposed metrics be both machine and human-readable and generated in
``standardized formats to prevent opacity and enable efficient
analysis.'' (AFPM Comments 2.) AFPM argues that this will ``enable
data-driven oversight to support a more reliable and efficient rail
network.'' (Id.) AFPM also proposes that ``[s]hippers should have the
ability to audit or correct carrier-submitted data to ensure accuracy,
as they are often best positioned to identify discrepancies.'' (Id.)
With respect to AFPM's request for machine readable data, the Board
will require that data be submitted ``in the manner and form'' it
prescribes, which will ensure the data's utility. To this end, OE will
provide a template to be used for submission of data, thereby ensuring
that submissions are machine readable. With respect to AFPM's request
that the Board also require submissions to be ``human-readable,'' (AFPM
Comments 2), the Board notes that it continues to evaluate ways to
improve data visualization on its public website and to improve the
transparency and consistency of reporting across the metrics it
collects. See NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 5.
Additionally, AAR requests that the Board ``develop templates or
another mechanism to simplify the ingestion and processing of the
data'' to reduce regulatory barriers. (AAR Comments 12-13.) As noted
above, the Board acknowledges AAR's request and remains committed to
the development of new data collection mechanisms and protocols that
will simplify and streamline data submission procedures.
With respect to shipper audits and corrections, the Board notes
that the data collected under part 1251 will be at the system and
operating division level, rather than at a more localized or shipper
level. Therefore, shippers will not have the information necessary to
audit the data. However, as discussed above, the Board notes that it
will retain the authority to audit carrier records in connection with
OETA and ISP reporting requirements, pursuant to 49 CFR 1220.6.
Requests for Technical Conferences
CSXT requests that the Board hold technical meetings or conferences
similar to those held in Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4), in the event
that the Board were to implement ``a more prescriptive approach,''
requiring CSXT ``to modify its systems to convert its existing metrics
to the Board's requested format.'' (CSXT Comments 7.)
Given that the Board is adopting regulations that will give
carriers more flexibility to report the data in a manner consistent
with how they track it in the ordinary course of business, it is not
necessary to hold a technical conference at this time. In addition, the
metrics that the Board will adopt here are not significantly different
from the type of reporting that the Board required of the railroads in
Demurrage Billing Requirements, Docket No. EP 759, and Reciprocal
Switching, Docket No. EP 711 (Sub-No. 2). If specific implementation
concerns arise, carriers may request clarification from the Board's
Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance,
which can be reached by telephone at (202) 245-0238 or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e0c1d0e1f3e0d0a1c50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd8f9e8d9cbd8e899fd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.
Use of Data in Formal Proceedings
AAR asks the Board to clarify that the metrics are not conclusive
evidence of service quality and ``that it is not appropriate to draw
any conclusions regarding a railroad's compliance with its common
carrier obligation from the systemwide metrics, or changes thereto.''
(AAR Comments 5.) AAR argues that any matter before the Board
``regarding alleged service issues should be evaluated on the specific
facts and circumstances of the particular complaint.'' (Id.)
The Board does not expect that OETA and ISP metrics on their own
would provide prima facie evidence of a carrier failure in a formal
complaint addressing the adequacy of a carrier's service. The Board
further notes that OETA data will be reported at a system-wide level
and ISP data at a system-wide and operating-division level, which
serves a different analytical purpose than evaluating individual
shipper-specific service issues (e.g., the data are used for rail
network monitoring). However, stakeholders may use OETA and ISP data as
appropriate in support of filings submitted to the Board, and the Board
will continue to evaluate individual proceedings on their own specific
facts and circumstances.
Requests To Close Other Dockets
AAR calls upon the Board to close out Urgent Issues in Freight Rail
Service, Docket No. EP 770; Urgent Issues in Freight Rail Service--
Railroad Reporting, Docket No. EP 770 (Sub-No. 1); and First-Mile/Last-
Mile Service, Docket No. EP 767. AAR argues that these dockets would no
longer be necessary if the Board decides to permanently collect the
service data reporting proposed in the NPRM. (AAR Comments 12; see also
AAR Reply 4-5.) The Board will address Docket Nos. EP 767, EP 770, and
EP 770 (Sub-No. 1) in separate decisions in those dockets.
Requests To Discontinue Other Existing Reporting Requirements
CSXT argues that if the Board proceeds with considering its
proposal in this docket, then the Board should issue a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking to ``eliminate other obsolete or
unnecessary reporting requirements.'' (CSXT Comments 13.) It
identifies, as examples, certain regulations at 49 CFR part 1250.\14\
(Id. at 13-14.) In support of
[[Page 25151]]
their removal, CSXT argues that ``[t]he Board should not wait to remove
those regulations, because layering on additional reporting simply
creates a larger collective reporting burden.'' (Id. at 13.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CSXT suggests the removal of 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(4) (weekly
average dwell time at origin for unit train shipments); 49 CFR
1250.2(a)(5) (weekly average number of trains holding per day by
type and cause); and 49 CFR 1250.4 (bi-annual rail infrastructure
projects reporting). (CSXT Comments 13-14.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CN also argues that portions of part 1250 ``no longer provide any
significant benefit,'' and proposes that the Board ``should eliminate
part 1250 reporting to the extent its costs are not outweighed by its
benefits.'' (CN Comments 8, 9.) Additionally, CN argues that the Board
``should reassess the current data elements required within the R-1
report,'' and ``should consider eliminating in their entirety any data
elements that are not relevant anymore.'' (Id. at 7-8.) It identifies
11 R-1 report line items for modification or elimination. (Id. at 8.)
In support of this proposal, CN argues, among other things, that the
various line items are time-consuming to prepare, not widely used, and
draw upon data contained in other schedules. (Id. at 7-8.)
The Board will not adopt these proposals at this time. CSXT's and
CN's proposals are outside the scope of this proceeding and considering
them in this docket would unnecessarily delay termination of the PTC
reporting requirement and adoption of the OETA and ISP metrics. As the
Board explained in the NPRM, the new metrics are ``just one component
of a broader effort to enhance, focus, and automate the agency's data
collection.'' NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 5. As such, the Board intends
to continue to consider ``the utility of certain existing metrics that
are not widely referenced or used by the Board, shippers, railroads, or
other members of the public.'' (Id.) Such metrics may include those
addressed by CSXT and CN in their comments.
Proposals for Expanded and Additional Metrics
Some commenters ask for expansion of the OETA and ISP metrics. AFPM
and TFI both advocate that the Board expand its proposed OETA metric to
capture the degree to which late arriving shipments miss their OETAs.
Under AFPM's proposal, OETA would measure the average lateness, in
hours, of all late shipments. (AFPM Comments 4.) AFPM argues that this
additional collection would ``prevent carriers from meeting minimum
success rates while permitting excessive delays on outlier shipments.''
(Id.) Similarly, TFI proposes that the Board adopt a rule that ``would
capture the absolute difference between a shipment's OETA and its
actual arrival time.'' (TFI Comments 3.) It argues that this is
necessary because, as proposed, OETA does not ``indicate a delay's
magnitude, leaving shippers without important information to make
internal adjustments and limiting the Board's ability to assess a
disruption's severity.'' (Id.) TFI asks the Board to expand the ISP
metric by requiring reporting of instances when a railroad fails to
serve a customer's facility during a planned service window and
reporting of the percentage of service windows a carrier cancels for
reasons other than a shipper's or receiver's request. (Id.)
USDA indicates general support for these proposals, encouraging the
Board to adopt ``measures of variation (instead of just averages) and
measures of cancelations and early arrivals (instead of just late
shipments).'' (USDA Reply 3.) According to USDA, ``the additional
metrics [would] provide crucial context on the size and quality of
service across the network'' and could ``be provided at very little
additional cost.'' (Id.)
Some commenters propose that the Board adopt additional metrics
beyond OETA and ISP. FRCA and NCTA argue that the Board should require
carriers to report average speeds achieved by unit trains and their
consistency. (FRCA/NCTA Comments 6.) FRCA, NCTA, and NITL argue that
the Board should restore the level of reporting for unit trains that
existed prior to the Board's January 31, 2024 decision in Urgent
Issues, Docket No. EP 770 (Sub-No. 1). (FRCA/NCTA Reply 4; FRCA/NCTA
Comments 6; NITL Comments 2.) TFI asks the Board to consider
implementing metrics that TFI and other shippers supported in comments
in First-Mile/Last-Mile Service, Docket No. EP 767, including
``Terminal Dwell Time,'' ``Serving Day Performance,'' and ``First-Mile
[Dwell Time]'' and ``Last-Mile Dwell Time.'' (TFI Comments 3 n.9
(citing ACC/AFPM/TFI Comments 17-30, First-Mile/Last-Mile Serv., EP
767).) NGFA suggests that the Board add a metric measuring ``the period
of time between [the] release[e] [of] a loaded unit train for pick-up
by the carrier, and the time the carrier actually arrives to take the
loaded train.'' (NGFA Comments 4.) \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As noted above, 49 CFR 1250.2(a)(4) already requires
carriers to file similar information. Carriers must file weekly
average dwell time at origin for certain train types, including
grain unit, coal unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol
unit, and all other unit trains. For the purposes of 49 CFR
1250.2(a)(4), dwell time refers to the time period from release of a
unit train at origin until actual movement by the receiving carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAR opposes calls for additional data collections. (AAR Reply 3.)
It argues that ``while the shipper associations express a desire for
more data to be collected, they do not identify a justifiable need for
the data.'' (Id.)
While the Board acknowledges the service issues raised by shippers
in this proceeding and that many shippers would prefer additional
service metrics, the Board will not adopt the proposed expanded and
additional metrics at this time. Consideration of those proposals would
expand the scope of this rulemaking and delay implementation of the
final rule. As explained in the NPRM, the OETA and ISP metrics will
allow the Board to ``better monitor service reliability and address
possible future regional and national service lapses.'' NPRM, EP 787,
slip op. at 4-5. As previously noted, the Board will continue to
consider how to ``enhance . . . the agency's data collection.'' NPRM,
EP 787, slip op. at 5.
However, with respect to TFI's request for a metric that tracks
carriers' cancellations of service windows, the Board notes both the
proposed and final rules provide that if a carrier cancels a service
window other than at the shipper's or receiver's request, each planned
spot or pull within the cancelled service window will be treated as a
failure for ISP reporting purposes. Therefore, while the Board will not
measure cancellations separately, cancellations will be captured by the
ISP metric. Additionally, the Director of OE may require a carrier to
provide summaries of its raw data by site or location, if necessary to
ensure data quality and utility.
Requests Concerning Plant Shutdowns and the Common Carrier Obligation
PRFBA advocates requiring railroads to compensate shippers, under
certain circumstances, when their plants are shut down due to poor
service. (PRFBA Comments 6.) It also asks the Board to consider
creating regulations that identify violations of railroads' common
carrier obligations. (Id.) The Board will not consider these proposals
as they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Environmental Review
The final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review
under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
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
[[Page 25152]]
alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. In its notice
of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), or certify that the
proposed rule would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The impact must be a
direct impact on small entities ``whose conduct is circumscribed or
mandated'' by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553
F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
The final rule applies only to Class I rail carriers and their
affiliated companies. As such, the regulations will not impact a
substantial number of small entities.\16\ Accordingly, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Board again certifies that the regulations 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, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject
to the Board's jurisdiction, the Board defines a ``small business''
as including only those rail carriers classified as Class III rail
carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards
Under the Regul. Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016).
Class III rail carriers have annual operating revenues of $48.2
million or less in 2024 dollars. Class II rail carriers have annual
operating revenues of less than $1.07 billion but more than $48.2
million in 2024 dollars. 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 Ann.
Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Board sought comments in the NPRM pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3) about the impact of
proposed changes to the collection ``Class I Railroad Annual Report''
(OMB Control No. 2140-0009) and the proposed new collection of service
data from Class I carriers, pursuant to OMB Control Number 2140-XXXX,
concerning: (1) whether the collections of information, as added in the
proposed rule are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Board, including whether the collections have 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. NPRM, EP 787,
slip op. at 8; 90 FR at 46782.
In the NPRM, the Board estimated that the proposed requirements
would reduce the hourly annual burden by 238 hours for six respondents,
all Class I railroads. NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 8. This estimate
consisted of the cumulative total of two types of filings required to
collect information and to allow the Board to implement the data
collections at 49 CFR part 1251.
First, the Board anticipated that the requirement for the Class I
railroads to update their internal data collections systems in order to
remove PTC entries would add an estimated total one-time hourly burden
of 36 hours across all six Class I rail carriers. NPRM, EP 787, slip
op. at 16. That burden would be amortized over three years. Id. Second,
the Board anticipated that the total annual burden associated with R-1
preparation across all six Class I rail carriers would be 1,320 hours.
Id. Third, the Board estimated that the burden of weekly reporting on
service reliability, which includes OETA and ISP, would have an annual
burden of 156 hours. Id. at 18. In calculating this estimate, the Board
assumed that the Class I rail carriers could provide this information
by making selections within a computer program once their systems have
been updated.
The Board received a response from USDA addressing the Board's
burden analysis for two types of collections of information under the
PRA. USDA supports the Board's collection of OETA and ISP metrics and
removal of the separate PTC Supplement reporting. (USDA Reply 3.)
The Board's decision modifies proposed 49 CFR 1251.1 and 1251.2 by
clarifying the types of data that carriers must submit in their
reporting. The modifications also make reporting requirements more
flexible, thereby reducing the need for carriers to modify their data
collections and protocols, and require each carrier to submit a
document explaining its methodology for deriving the data and to update
that document if its methodology changes. The Board has not modified
the estimated burden associated with service reliability reporting
because it believes that reduced burdens from reporting flexibility
will offset the de minimis burden of creating (and updating, if
necessary) a methodology document, which can be drawn from past carrier
submissions in this area.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In addition, no changes are needed to the burden hours
associated with the R-1 collection. While this decision modifies the
NPRM proposal to remove the requirement for a one-time PTC summary
document ``identifying individual line items in their respective R-1
reports that contain PTC-related expenditures representing at least
15% of the line-item amounts,'' see NPRM, EP 787, slip op. at 4, the
burden hours associated with the one-time summary document were
considered to be minimal. As no other changes have been made
regarding the Board's proposal to eliminate the PTC supplement, no
changes to the burden hours associated with the R-1 collection will
be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two collection requests to modify and extend an existing,
approved collection and to create a new 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 requests 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).
Executive Order 12866, as modified by Executive Order 14215,
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule
is not significant. This action is considered an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action.
It is ordered:
1. The Board adopts the final rule as set forth in this decision.
Notice of the adopted rule will be published in the Federal Register.
2. This decision is effective June 7, 2026. The initial reporting
date will be July 8, 2026.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
Decided: May 5, 2026.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 1241 and 1251
Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145, the Surface Transportation Board amends
chapter X of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 25153]]
PART 1241--ANNUAL, SPECIAL, OR PERIODIC REPORTS--CARRIERS SUBJECT
TO PART I OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 1241 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 11145.
0
2. Remove the note to part 1241.
0
3. Revise Sec. 1241.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 1241.11 Annual reports of class I railroads.
Commencing with reports for the year ended December 31, 1973, and
thereafter, until further order, all line-haul railroad companies of
class I, as defined in Sec. 1240.1 of this chapter, subject to section
20, Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, are required to file annual
reports in accordance with Railroad Annual Report Form R-1. Such annual
report shall be filed in duplicate in the office of the Office of
Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC, on or before
March 31 of the year following the year which is being reported.
Note 1 to Sec. 1241.11: The report forms prescribed by this
section are available on the Surface Transportation Board website.
0
4. Add part 1251 to read as follows:
PART 1251--RAILROAD SERVICE DATA REPORTING
Sec.
1251.1 Definitions.
1251.2 Service metrics reporting.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 49 U.S.C. 11145.
Sec. 1251.1 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Affiliated companies has the same meaning as ``affiliated
companies'' in Definition 5 of the Uniform System of Accounts (49 CFR
part 1201, subpart A).
Bad order cars means cars that must undergo repair before
completing their trips due to mechanical, safety, or structural
problems.
Cut-off time means the deadline for requesting service within a
service window, as determined in accordance with the Class I rail
carrier's established protocol.
Delivery means when a shipment is actually placed at a designated
destination or is constructively placed at a local railroad yard that
is convenient to the designated destination. In the case of an
interline movement, a shipment will be deemed to be delivered to the
receiving carrier or its agent or affiliated company when the shipment
is offered for interchange.
Designated destination means the final destination as specified in
the bill of lading or, in the case of an interline movement, the
interchange where the shipment is offered to the receiving carrier, its
agent, or affiliated company.
Industry spot and pull means the local placement (``spot'') and
pick-up (``pull'') of railcars (regardless of ownership) at a shipper's
or receiver's facility.
Manifest traffic means shipments that move in carload or non-unit
train service.
Original estimated time of arrival or OETA means the estimated time
of arrival that the rail carrier provides when the shipper releases the
shipment with all necessary and customary documentation or, in the case
of an interline movement, when a shipment is reported delivered in
interchange and confirmed to have physically been delivered to the
receiving carrier with necessary and customary documentation for
furtherance.
Planned service window means a service window for which the shipper
or receiver requested local service, provided that the shipper or
receiver made its request by the cut-off time for that window.
Service window means a window in which the rail carrier offers to
perform local service (placements and/or pick-ups of railcars) at a
shipper's or receiver's facility. A service window must be made
available by a rail carrier with reasonable advance notice to the
shipper or receiver and in accordance with the carrier's established
protocol.
Shipment means a loaded railcar that is designated in a bill of
lading.
Time of arrival means the time that a shipment is delivered to the
designated destination.
Sec. 1251.2 Service metrics reporting.
All Class I rail carriers shall report to the Board on a weekly
basis, in a manner and form determined by the Surface Transportation
Board (Board), the data described in this section. Each Class I rail
carrier shall provide, with its initial data submission, a document
explaining its methodology for deriving the data. If a carrier's
methodology changes, the carrier shall file an updated methodology
document with the first data submission that reflects the methodology
change. The Director of the Board's Office of Economics may require a
carrier to revise its methodology and submit revised metrics for past
periods to ensure data quality and utility. The service metrics in this
section apply only to the data collection contemplated under this part.
(a) Original estimated time of arrival--(1) OETA metric. The OETA
metric is the percentage of shipments on a carrier's system that moved
in manifest service and were delivered to the designated destination no
later than 24 hours after the OETA, out of all shipments on the
carrier's system that moved in manifest service during that week. For
the purpose of calculating the OETA metric, once a carrier has
communicated an OETA to a customer, that time shall not be changed by
any subsequent changes to the original trip plan of the car, unless the
change to the original trip plan is made in response to a shipper's
request or a shipper's failure to make cars available for pick-up.
(2) OETA applicability. The OETA metric applies to shipments that
travel as manifest traffic only within the United States. The OETA
metric does not apply to cars placed in bad order status during
shipment.
(b) Industry spot and pull (ISP)--(1) ISP metric. The ISP metric is
the percentage of scheduled spots or pulls (i.e., those requested by a
shipper or receiver before the applicable cut-off time) that were
successfully performed during the planned service windows, out of the
total number of spots or pulls that were scheduled for that week. A
Class I rail carrier must report the ISP metric for each of its
operating divisions and for the carrier's overall system. For reporting
at the operating division level, a Class I rail carrier may establish
reporting regions using any geographic boundaries it chooses, provided
that it identifies the boundaries in its methodology document submitted
to the Board.
(i) Failure to spot a constructively placed railcar that has been
ordered in by the cut-off time applicable to the customer for a planned
service window shall be included as a failure in calculating the ISP
metric. This includes ``spot on arrival'' railcars (i.e., railcars that
may be placed without placement instructions) that have been
constructively placed for any reason.
(ii) Failure to spot a ``spot on arrival'' railcar for a planned
service window shall be included as a failure in calculating the ISP
metric if the railcar arrived at the local yard that services the
customer and was ready for local service before the cut-off time
applicable to the customer.
(iii) If a Class I rail carrier cancels a service window, other
than at the shipper's or receiver's request, each planned spot or pull
from the cancelled service window shall be included as a failure in
calculating the ISP metric.
(iv) When a rail customer causes a Class I rail carrier to miss a
spot or a pull during a planned service window, those spots or pulls
will not be
[[Page 25154]]
considered failures in calculating the ISP metric.
(2) ISP applicability. The ISP metric shall not include unit
trains, intermodal traffic, or cars placed in bad order status after
arrival at the serving yard.
[FR Doc. 2026-09189 Filed 5-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 8, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.