Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

50422

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

ACC Letter 2,7 and The Fertilizer Institute TFI wrote to express general service concerns, which encompass issues such as reductions in days of service to customers, increased dwell times, and car order errors, see TFI
Letter 2.8
The Board has received additional correspondence relating to FMLM
service over the last year.9 On August 31, 2020, the Freight Rail Customer Alliance FRCA, the National Coal Transportation Association NCTA, the National Industrial Transportation League NITL, and the Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association, Inc.
PRFBA, collectively, the Shipper Group stated that their members have become increasingly aware of and concerned by what they describe as the gap between the service data that the railroads report to the Board and the level of service that shippers receive in the real world. the Shipper Group Letter 2.10 The Shipper Group noted that the service metrics collected pursuant to rules adopted in United States Rail Service IssuesPerformance Data Reporting, Docket No. EP 724 Sub-No.
4, do not focus on FMLM service for traffic that does not move in unit trains.
Id. Therefore, they seek improved transparency regarding FMLM service issues and suggest that such transparency could be achieved by having the rail carriers report appropriate data. Id.
The Association of American Railroads AAR responded to the letter on September 10, 2020, stating that the request is unnecessary and undefined, 7 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink ACC Letter to STB Regarding Rail Service, June 8, 2021 under headings 2021 and June.
8 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink Fertilizer Institute Letter to STB Regarding CSX Rail Service, June 2, 2021 under headings 2021 and June.
9 These letters follow comments in Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, Docket No. EP 754, regarding a variety of local service issues that may relate to FMLM service. See, e.g., International Paper Statement 2, May 7, 2019, Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754 Reduced switch frequency has led to last mile service issues. . . . Changes to local service yards have also heightened risks for service failure.; Packaging Corporation of America Statement 35, May 8, 2019, Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754
describing local service issues such as switching issues; Ag Processing Inc Statement 4, June 5, 2019, Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges, EP 754 referring to increased dwell times due to reductions in local service.
10 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink FRCA, NCTA, NITL, PRFBA Letter to STB regarding Rail Service Data, August 31, 2020 under headings 2020 and August.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Sep 07, 2021

Jkt 253001

that data collection would not be practicable or meaningful, and that shippers have remedies for service concerns. AAR Letter 13.11 AAR notes that railroads provide such information directly to their customers, id. at 1, and that the Shipper Groups suggestion would require that the Board collect, process, and protect enormous amounts of commercially sensitive data and information, id. at 3. On September 21, 2020, UP responded to the Shipper Group, stating that it already provides local service metrics at the customer level and that aggregated metrics would not provide customers with meaningful representation of their local service levels. UP Letter 1.12
On October 8, 2020, the Shipper Group replied that data reporting on FMLM issues would not be unduly burdensome, that it would be useful regardless of some inconsistencies between carriers, and that it is needed because it would help the Board better monitor carriers service and the data available to individual shippers does not allow the Board to ascertain whether carriers are meeting their common carrier obligations in the aggregate. the Shipper Group Response Letter 23.13
Request for Comments The Board seeks comment from the shipping community, carriers, and the public concerning what, if any, FMLM
issues they consider relevant. The Board also seeks comment on whether further examination of FMLM issues is warranted, and what, if any, actions may help address such issues, taking into account the information shippers already receive from carriers. Of particular importance, and as set forth in the questions raised below, the Board seeks recommendations as to specific additional data commenters view as important to identify FMLM service concerns that is not now being reported to the Board.14 The Board would find 11 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink AAR
response regarding FRCA, NCTA, NITL, PRFBA
Letter to STB, September 10, 2020 under headings 2020 and September.
12 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink UP
Response Letter to FRCA regarding Rail Service Data, September 21, 2020 under headings 2020
and September.
13 Available at https prod.stb.gov/newscommunications/non-docketed-publiccorrespondence/ then follow hyperlink FRCA, NCTA, NITL, PRFBA Response Letter regarding AAR Letter to STB, October 8, 2020 under headings 2020 and October.
14 For example, the Board is interested in the insights it may be able to draw from event data such
PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

such data recommendations helpful with respect to the issues commenters may find relevant to FMLM service. The Board also seeks information about potential burdens of any suggested data collection and reporting.
Shipper commenters may wish to provide context for their comments by including information about the quantity or volume of traffic they ship, their storage capacity, seasonality of their shipments if any, work windows, and other factors that make their facilities or operations unique. If requested, a protective order may be issued that would allow sensitive information to be filed under seal.
In identifying FMLM issues, commenters should provide concrete examples, if possible. Further, although there is no set format for comments, answers to the following questions would be helpful when identifying issues:
How often does the issue arise?
Why does the issue occur?
How does the issue affect your operations? How does the issue affect your facilities and/or production?
How does the issue affect your labor schedule?
What is the financial impact associated with this issue?
Has this issue changed with the implementation of operating changes generally referred to as precision scheduled railroading?
How do you typically try to address the issue? What is communication regarding this issue like between shippers and carriers?
What remedies are available to you?
Design of metrics. As noted, some shippers have suggested that the Board collect additional service metrics to measure FMLM service, and commenters may wish to further address:
What, if any, existing information or metrics collected by the Board or maintained by carriers facilitate an understanding of the issue?
What new information or metrics would illuminate the issue? The Board asks for specificity in any suggestions, including specific definitions for different types of services e.g., transportation involving one carrier vs.
multiple carriers and facilities e.g., openvs. closed-gate.
How and at what level should any metrics be reported individual shipper, local, regional, or national?
Should metrics only measure FMLM service, or should additional as the TeleRail Automated Information Network TRAIN II information exchange protocol or similar datasets available to the railroads.

E:FRFM08SEN1.SGM

08SEN1