sign in sign up
<<
Home , November 16

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72971

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, 16, Dated: 16, 2020. FAR Case 2020–003; Removal of FAR 1994). Marietta Echeverria, Appendix; Item I; which published in Since tolerances and exemptions that Acting Director, Registration Division, Office the Federal Register on , are established on the basis of a petition of Pesticide Programs. 2020. This correction makes an editorial under FFDCA section 408(d), such as Therefore, for the reasons stated in the change to correct the amendatory the tolerance in this final rule, do not preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR language in the affected FAR section of require the issuance of a proposed rule, chapter I as follows: part 30. the requirements of the Regulatory DATES: Effective: , 2020. Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et PART 180—TOLERANCES AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. seq.), do not apply. EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE Bryon Boyer, Procurement Analyst, at CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD This action directly regulates growers, 817–850–5580 or by email at food processors, food handlers, and food ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 [email protected] for clarification of retailers, not States or tribes, nor does continues to read as follows: content. For information pertaining to this action alter the relationships or status or publication schedules, contact Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. distribution of power and the Regulatory Secretariat Division at responsibilities established by Congress ■ 2. In § 180.564 amend paragraph (a)(1) 202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2021– in the preemption provisions of FFDCA by designating the table as Table 1 02, FAR Case 2020–003; Correction. section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency paragraph (a)(1) and adding in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: has determined that this action will not alphabetical order to newly designated Correction have a substantial direct effect on States Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1) the entries or Tribal Governments, on the ‘‘Almond, hulls’’ and ‘‘Nut, tree, group In FR Doc. 2020–21695, published in relationship between the National 14–12’’ to read as follows: the Federal Register at 85 FR 67613, on Government and the States or Tribal § 180.564 Indoxacarb; tolerances for October 23, 2020, make the following Governments, or on the distribution of residues. correction: power and responsibilities among the (a) * * * (1) * * * 30.202–7 [Corrected] various levels of government or between ■ On page 67614, in the third column, the Federal Government and Indian TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1) Tribes. Thus, the Agency has revise amendatory instruction number determined that Executive Order 13132, Parts per 24, to read as follows: entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Commodity million ■ 24. Amend section 30.202–7 in 10, 1999) and Executive Order paragraph (a)(1) introductory text by 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and removing ‘‘(FAR Appendix)’’. Coordination with Indian Tribal ***** Almond, hulls ...... 8 William F. Clark, Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, , 2000) do not apply to this action. In Director, Office of Government-wide ***** Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition addition, this action does not impose Nut, tree, group 14–12 ...... 0.08 Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. any enforceable duty or contain any [FR Doc. 2020–24158 Filed 11–13–20; 8:45 am] unfunded mandate as described under ***** Title II of the Unfunded Mandates BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et * * * * * seq.). [FR Doc. 2020–23420 Filed 11–13–20; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION This action does not involve any BILLING CODE 6560–50–P technical standards that would require Federal Railroad Administration Agency consideration of voluntary DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE consensus standards pursuant to section 49 CFR Part 273 12(d) of the National Technology GENERAL SERVICES Transfer and Advancement Act [Docket No. FRA–2019–0069; Notice No. 3] ADMINISTRATION (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). RIN 2130–AC85 VII. Congressional Review Act NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Metrics and Minimum Standards for Pursuant to the Congressional Review Intercity Passenger Rail Service Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 48 CFR Part 30 submit a report containing this rule and AGENCY: Federal Railroad other required information to the U.S. [FAC 2021–02; FAR Case 2020–003; Item Administration (FRA), Department of Senate, the U.S. House of I; Docket No. FAR–2020–0003, Sequence 1] Transportation (DOT). Representatives, and the Comptroller RIN 9000–AO06 ACTION: Final rule. General of the prior to SUMMARY: publication of the rule in the Federal Federal Acquisition Regulation: This final rule establishes Register. This action is not a ‘‘major Removal of FAR Appendix; Correction metrics and minimum standards for rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). measuring the performance and service AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), quality of intercity passenger train List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 General Services Administration (GSA), operations. and National Aeronautics and Space Environmental protection, Administration (NASA). DATES: This final rule is effective on 16, 2020. Administrative practice and procedure, ACTION: Final rule; correction. Agricultural commodities, Pesticides FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are Kristin Ferriter, Transportation Industry requirements. issuing a correction to FAC 2021–02; Analyst, telephone (202) 493–0197; or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72972 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Zeb Schorr, Assistant Chief Counsel, customer service, financial, and public Association of Independent Passenger telephone (202) 493–6072. benefits. With respect to on-time Rail Operators, BNSF Railway SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: performance and train delays, this final Company, California State rule sets forth a customer on-time Transportation Agency, Canadian Table of Contents for Supplementary performance metric, defined as the Information National Railway Company, Canadian percentage of all customers on an Pacific, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers I. Executive Summary intercity passenger rail train who arrive Authority, CSX Transportation, II. Background at their detraining point no later than 15 Environmental Law and Policy Center, III. Response to Comments on On-Time minutes after their published scheduled Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Performance and Train Delays arrival time, reported by train and by Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail IV. FRA Quarterly Reporting route. This final rule establishes a V. Section-by-Section Analysis of Comments Commission, New York State and Revisions From the NPRM customer on-time performance minimum standard of 80 percent for any Department of Transportation (DOT), NJ VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices Transit, Norfolk Southern Railway A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 2 consecutive calendar quarters, and 13771, and DOT Regulatory Policies and sets forth when the standard begins to Company, North Carolina DOT, Rail Procedures apply. In addition, this final rule Passengers Association, San Joaquin B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive includes the following related metrics: Regional Rail Commission, Southeastern Order 13272; Initial Regulatory Ridership data, certified schedule, train Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Flexibility Assessment delays, train delays per 10,000 train Southern Rail Commission, States for C. Paperwork Reduction Act Passenger Rail Coalition, Surface D. Federalism Implications miles, station performance, and host E. Environmental Impact running time. Transportation Board (STB), Transportation for America, Union F. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental B. Procedural History Justice) Pacific Railroad Company, Utah Rail G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal By notice of proposed rulemaking Passengers Association, Virginia Consultation) (NPRM) published on 31, 2020 Department of Rail and Public H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (85 FR 17835), FRA proposed metrics Transportation, Virginia Railway I. Energy Impact and minimum standards for measuring J. Trade Impact Express, Washington State DOT, the the performance and service quality of Honorable U.S. Representative Sam I. Executive Summary intercity passenger train operations. Graves, the Honorable U.S. FRA held a telephonic public hearing Representative Rick Crawford, and more A. Overview of the Final Rule on 30, 2020. Written comments on than 290 other individuals. Comments This final rule establishes metrics and the proposed rule were required to be are addressed in the preamble. minimum standards for measuring the submitted no later than 1, 2020. performance and service quality of FRA received more than 320 C. Economic Analysis Amtrak’s intercity passenger train comments, including comments from: operations (Metrics and Standards). The Alabama State Port Authority, Alaska All costs of this final rule are Metrics and Standards are organized Railroad, American Association of State expected to be incurred during the first into four categories: On-time Highway and Transportation Officials, year. The following table shows the total performance (OTP) and train delays, Association of American Railroads, 10-year costs of this final rule.

TOTAL 10-YEAR COSTS

Annualized, Annualized, Category Total cost 7 percent 3 percent ($) ($) ($)

Cost of Meetings ...... 473,473 67,412 55,505 Internal Staff Time (Preparation for Meetings) ...... 296,991 42,285 34,816 Monthly Letters ...... 50,328 7,166 5,900 Arbitration ...... 714,030 101,662 83,706 Ridership Data ...... 6,198 882 727

Total ...... 1,541,020 219,407 180,655

This final rule result in lower operational costs or improved service quality of intercity passenger train operational costs for Amtrak to the that may result from the final rule. operations, including: Cost recovery, on- extent it results in improved OTP, time performance and minutes of delay, which may reduce labor costs, fuel II. Background ridership, on-board services, stations, costs, and expenses related to passenger A. PRIIA facilities, equipment, and other services. inconvenience, and provide benefits to Section 207 also calls for consultation riders from improved travel times and On , 2008, President with STB, rail carriers over whose rail service quality. Due to the difficulty in George W. Bush signed the Passenger lines Amtrak trains operate, States, quantifying future benefits to rail routes Rail Investment and Improvement Act Amtrak employees, and groups from improved OTP, combined with the of 2008, Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. representing Amtrak passengers, as inability to quantify the potential 4907 (PRIIA) into law. Section 207 of appropriate. synergistic effects that improved OTP PRIIA requires FRA and Amtrak to Section 207 further provides that the reliability could have across Amtrak’s develop jointly new or improved metrics, at a minimum, must include: network, FRA has not quantified any metrics and minimum standards for The percentage of avoidable and fully potential benefits from lower measuring the performance and service allocated operating costs covered by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72973

passenger revenues on each route; that section 207 of PRIIA was On , 2019, in two different ridership per train mile operated; unconstitutional. In 2016, the United meetings, FRA met separately with, measures of on-time performance and States Court of Appeals for the District first, representatives of the International delays incurred by intercity passenger of Columbia Circuit found that Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, trains on the rail lines of each rail paragraph (d) of section 207 was and Transportation Workers, carrier; and, for long-distance routes, unconstitutional, and this holding had Transportation Division, and, second, measures of connectivity with other the effect, in part, of voiding the 2010 with members of the Surface routes in all regions currently receiving Metrics and Standards. Following Transportation Board.1 FRA and Amtrak Amtrak service and the transportation additional litigation, that Court also also sought input from other potentially needs of communities and populations found that paragraphs (a) through (c) of interested entities who did not express that are not well-served by other forms section 207 were constitutional and interest in consulting at that time.2 of intercity transportation. Section 207 remained in effect (this decision became After publishing the NPRM, FRA requires Amtrak to provide reasonable final upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s invited each of the stakeholders to meet access to FRA to carry out its duty denial of certiorari on , 2019). As again. As a result of this invitation, on under section 207. a result, in 2019, FRA and Amtrak , 2020, FRA met via telephone Section 207 provides that the Federal once again began the process of with representatives of the following Railroad Administrator must collect the developing joint Metrics and Standards Class I railroads that host Amtrak trains: necessary data and publish a quarterly under section 207(a). BNSF Railway; Canadian National report on the performance and service Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway; CSX quality of intercity passenger train C. Stakeholder Consultation Transportation; Norfolk Southern operations, including: Amtrak’s cost Consistent with section 207(a), FRA Railway Company; and Union Pacific recovery, ridership, on-time and Amtrak consulted with many Railroad. Representatives of the performance and minutes of delay, stakeholders to develop the Metrics and Association of American Railroads and causes of delay, on-board services, Standards. Amtrak also attended this meeting. On stations, facilities, equipment, and other Specifically, in August and , 2020, FRA met via telephone services. , 2019, FRA met individually with representatives of the American Finally, section 207 provides that, to with representatives of the following Association of State Highway the extent practicable, Amtrak and its Class I railroads that host Amtrak trains: Transportation Officials, Capitol host rail carriers shall incorporate the BNSF Railway, Canadian National Corridor Joint Powers Authority, Metrics and Standards into their access Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX Connecticut DOT, California DOT, and service agreements (also referred to Transportation, Norfolk Southern Illinois DOT, Michigan DOT, as operating agreements). Railway Company, and Union Pacific DOT, North Carolina DOT, New York The Metrics and Standards also relate Railroad. On , 2019, FRA State DOT, Northern New England to section 213 of PRIIA (codified at 49 and Amtrak met with representatives of Passenger Rail Authority, U.S.C. 24308(f)). Section 213 states that the Rail Passengers Association. On DOT, Oregon DOT, San Joaquin Joint if the on-time performance of any , 2019, FRA and Amtrak Powers Authority, Vermont Agency of intercity passenger train averages less met with representatives of the Metro- Transportation, Virginia Department of than 80 percent for any 2 consecutive North Railroad. On , 2019, Rail and Public Transportation, calendar quarters, or the service quality FRA and Amtrak met with Washington State DOT, Wisconsin DOT, of intercity passenger train operations representatives of the Transport State Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail for which minimum standards are Workers Union. On , 2019, Committee, and States for Passenger established under section 207 fails to FRA and Amtrak met with Surface Rail Coalition. Representatives of meet those standards for 2 consecutive Transportation Board staff. On Amtrak also attended this meeting. calendar quarters, STB may initiate an , 2019, FRA and Amtrak Lastly, on , 2020, FRA met with investigation. Under section 213, STB convened a meeting with members of representatives of STB. Representatives shall also initiate such an investigation the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger of Amtrak also attended this meeting. upon the filing of a complaint by Rail Committee, whose members FRA placed summaries of each of these Amtrak, an intercity passenger rail include: Caltrans, Capitol Corridor Joint meetings, including the presentation operator, a host freight railroad over Powers Authority, Connecticut DOT, material, in the NPRM’s rulemaking which Amtrak operates, or an entity for Illinois DOT, Los Angeles-San Diego- docket (FRA–2019–0069–0013, FRA– which Amtrak operates intercity San Luis Obispo Joint Powers Authority, 2019–0069–0022, and FRA–2019–0069– passenger rail service. Section 213 Massachusetts DOT, Michigan DOT, 0028). further describes STB’s investigation Missouri DOT, New York State DOT, In addition, on , 2020, FRA and STB’s related authority to identify North Carolina DOT, Northern New met individually via telephone with reasonable measures and make England Passenger Rail Authority, BNSF Railway, Canadian National recommendations to improve the Oklahoma DOT, Oregon DOT, Railway, CSX Transportation, Norfolk service, quality, and on-time Pennsylvania DOT, San Joaquin Joint Southern Railway Company, and Union performance of the train and to award Powers Authority, Texas DOT, Vermont Pacific Railroad. Representatives of damages and prescribe other relief. Agency of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public 1 One commenter stated that FRA should have B. 2010 Metrics and Standards Transportation, Washington State DOT, also consulted with heavy tonnage seaports with In March 2009, FRA published and Wisconsin DOT. On , terminal and switching railroads. FRA notes that, while such specific consultation was not required proposed Metrics and Standards, which 2019, Amtrak met separately with by the statute, FRA had many in-depth meetings were jointly developed with Amtrak. representatives of the Union Pacific with Class I railroads who are well-versed in the After receiving and considering Railroad. On , 2019, FRA issues related to providing rail service to seaports; comments, FRA published final Metrics and Amtrak met with representatives of indeed Class I railroad comments mirrored those from this commenter. and Standards in May 2010. However, the Vermont Railway. On , 2 FRA sought input from certain rail labor groups the 2010 Metrics and Standards were 2019, Amtrak met separately with that did not express interest in consulting at the subject to a legal challenge on the basis representatives of the BNSF Railway. time.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72974 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Amtrak attended each of these meetings. D. Amtrak’s Role in the Metrics and III. Response to Comments on On-Time On , 2020, FRA met via Standards Rulemaking Performance and Train Delays telephone with Canadian Pacific A. Customer On-Time Performance Railway. Representatives of Amtrak Beginning in July 2019, FRA and attended this meeting. In these six Amtrak began the process of developing As proposed in the NPRM, this final meetings, FRA sought collaborative the Metrics and Standards under section rule measures the OTP element of commitment to affirm or adjust the 207(a) of PRIIA. FRA and Amtrak held intercity passenger train performance intercity passenger train schedules an executive kick-off meeting to initiate using a customer OTP metric, defined as published for stations served across the the effort, which was followed by a the percentage of all customers on an railroad’s network, and continued regular cadence of staff level meetings. intercity passenger rail train who arrive discipline to maintaining schedules, in As described above, FRA and Amtrak at their detraining point no later than 15 minutes after their published scheduled order to expand the growing data pool then conducted an extensive arrival time, reported by train and by that would support any necessary consultation process with many route.3 The customer OTP metric schedule change. Subsequent FRA stakeholders to develop the Metrics and focuses on intercity passenger train letters to these parties summarizing the Standards. After the conclusion of the consultation process, FRA worked with performance as experienced by the discussion were placed in the NPRM’s customer. Customer OTP measures the rulemaking docket (FRA–2019–0069– Amtrak to develop the Metrics and Standards, which included extensive on-time arrival of every intercity 0379). On , 2020, FRA met passenger customer, including those Amtrak input that was reflected in the collectively via telephone with Amtrak, who detrain at intermediate stops along Metrics and Standards NPRM. After BNSF Railway, Canadian National a route and those who ride the entire publication of the NPRM, FRA met with Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX route. Transportation, Norfolk Southern various stakeholders (Class I railroads, The customer OTP metric is Railway Company, and Union Pacific States, and the STB) together with calculated as follows: The total number Railroad regarding reaffirmation or Amtrak, as described above. FRA then of customers on an intercity passenger reconciliation of Amtrak’s published sought (and received) Amtrak’s input on rail train who arrive at their detraining train schedules. FRA’s subsequent letter the draft Metrics and Standards final point no later than 15 minutes after to those parties summarizing the rule, considered Amtrak’s input, and their published scheduled arrival time, discussion was placed in the NPRM’s then, as the agency with rulemaking divided by the total number of rulemaking docket (FRA–2019–0069– authority, FRA ultimately determined customers on the intercity passenger rail 0382). the contents of this final rule. train.4 For example:

The following table provides a arrival status (‘‘OT’’ for on-time, ‘‘LT’’ day of operation and the two days hypothetical customer OTP calculation for late), total number of customer overall. for a single train on two separate days. arrivals, and number of on-time The table provides the minutes late, customer arrivals, by station, for each

3 This definition reflects a minor revision to the on canceled trains (less than 4 hours advance of a train are excluded from the calculation for their NPRM’s definition of customer OTP, which clarifies notice) are counted as late customer arrivals at their original trip but would be counted for customer that early trains are counted as on-time. FRA made ticketed station if service to their ticketed station is OTP for the rescheduled trip. Customers on bus this revision in response to a comment seeking this canceled. Customers that are carried beyond their bridges (transportation on buses for a portion of a clarification. ticketed off-point are included in the customer regularly scheduled train route) are excluded from 4 There are several uncommon situations that can arrival count at their ticketed off-points. Re- the calculation. affect the calculation of customer OTP. Customers accommodated customers not due to the suspension

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.004 ER16NO20.005 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72975

In this example, customer OTP is . . . measures of on-time performance operate below the standard.6 In related 100% on day 1, 68% on day 2, and 84% and delays incurred by intercity comments, commenters stated that the for the two days combined. Because the passenger trains on the rail lines of each OTP calculation should exclude certain number of customers on this train is rail carrier . . . .’’ FRA disagrees. As delays for which the host railroad was different by station and by day, the further described below, PRIIA calls for not responsible (e.g., third party delays aggregate customer OTP over the period measuring the intercity passenger train’s or Amtrak-responsible delays) and give is not a simple average of the daily OTP performance, not the host host railroads in dense metro territories numbers. railroad’s performance in hosting the an ‘‘out-of-slot delay tolerance’’ in As also proposed in the NPRM, this intercity passenger train. Section 207, connection with the OTP calculation. final rule establishes a minimum when viewed in its entirety, does not In this final rule, FRA’s approach to standard for customer OTP of 80 percent require distinguishing OTP by host OTP follows the framework Congress set for any 2 consecutive calendar quarters. railroad. Sec. 207(a) (Requiring the forth in PRIIA. Section 207 calls for To promote clarity and compliance, the development of metrics and minimum measuring the intercity passenger train’s customer OTP standard is the only standards ‘‘including on-time OTP performance, not the host standard set forth in connection with performance and minutes of delay railroad’s performance in hosting the 7 the OTP and train delays metrics. FRA . . . .’’); § 207(b) (Requiring FRA intercity passenger train. A host believes this single standard is the most quarterly reporting on intercity railroad-specific measurement of OTP, effective way to achieve dedicated focus passenger train operations, ‘‘including accounting for late handoffs, slot time on improving on-time performance. . . . on-time performance and minutes adjustments, and other methods of FRA emphasizes that 80 percent is a of delay . . . .’’). Indeed, other sections relief, would result in a system that is minimum standard, and FRA expects in PRIIA require an OTP metric that misaligned with the customer some intercity passenger rail services measures a train’s performance over an experience: passenger trains that arrive will reliably achieve a higher standard entire route, and not just route segments late at their destinations but are of performance. The 80 percent by host railroad. 49 U.S.C. 24710(a) and reported as ‘‘on-time.’’ Other sections in customer OTP standard is consistent (b); see also 49 U.S.C. 24308(f)(1). PRIIA also require an OTP metric that with the statutory requirement in 49 measures a train’s performance over an U.S.C. 24308(f)(1). Furthermore, an OTP metric that measures a host railroad’s performance entire route (that can be compared to Lastly, the final rule includes a other routes), and not just route provision not proposed in the NPRM, would not depict the customer’s 8 experience as passenger trains that segments by host railroad. In addition, which provides that the customer OTP Congress specifically identified the OTP arrive late at their destinations may be standard shall apply to a train beginning metric as a trigger for an STB reported as ‘‘on-time.’’ Lastly, Congress on the first full calendar quarter after investigation.9 49 U.S.C. 24308(f)(1). , 2021. For example, if the final emphasized the importance of In any event, the train performance rule is published on , 2020, measuring delays by host railroad as metrics in this final rule do not penalize 6 months after that date would be June evidenced in section 213, which host railroads for train delays for which 10, 2021, and the first full calendar requires the STB to investigate whether they are not responsible. As described quarter after that would run from , and to what extent delays are due to below, the final rule’s train delays 2021 to , 2021. FRA also causes that could reasonably be metric and host running time metric understands that in some instances the addressed by a host railroad. Thus, in speak to the individual host railroad’s alignment of a train schedule with the compliance with section 207(a), this customer OTP metric may require final rule does include train delay 6 One commenter also stated that the customer additional time. As such, if Amtrak and metrics that describe train performance OTP metric would harm the morale of the host a host railroad do not agree on a new on individual host railroads (e.g., the railroad’s employees who take pride in achieving train schedule and the schedule is host running time metric shows train good OTP. FRA appreciates the commitment of all employees, at Amtrak and the host railroads, and reported as a disputed schedule on or performance over a host railroad as understand they work hard in support of Amtrak before May 17, 2021, then the customer compared to the train’s scheduled trains. OTP standard for the disputed schedule running time, thereby distinguishing 7 FRA’s quarterly reports do not exist solely to shall apply beginning on the second full host railroads on multi-host railroad serve as a trigger for an STB investigation. These calendar quarter after May 17, 2021. reports also provide information for policymakers routes). and the public, consistent with the data reporting FRA added these provisions to the final Regardless of whether the statute for other modes of transportation, such as air travel. rule to ensure host railroads and Amtrak requires it, several commenters stated See https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/ aviation-consumer-protection/air-travel-consumer- have sufficient time to align their train that the final rule should distinguish schedules before FRA begins reporting reports. OTP by host railroad.5 In support, these 8 See 49 U.S.C. 24710(a) (Requiring Amtrak to use the customer OTP metric data. the section 207 performance metrics to evaluate FRA received hundreds of comments commenters noted that the OTP metric determines when a host railroad may be annually the operating performance of each long- on customer OTP. Some commenters distance train); 49 U.S.C. 24710(b) (Requiring supported the customer OTP metric and subjected to an STB investigation (and Amtrak to develop a performance improvement standard and some disapproved of it. other delay metrics could not prevent plan for its long-distance routes based on the data collected from the section 207 performance metrics, Many commenters generally supported the initiation of an investigation). In other words, these commenters to include OTP); 49 U.S.C. 24308(f)(1) (Referring to the use of a single metric to measure the on-time performance of an ‘‘intercity passenger OTP and the use of a single OTP expressed concern that a host railroad train’’); see also Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Surface could be subject to an STB investigation Transp. Bd., 863 F.3d 816, 826 (8th Cir. 2017). standard. 9 Several commenters stated that and/or reputational harm even if its own FRA’s quarterly reports showing Amtrak’s performance did not cause the train to performance under the OTP metric are relied upon section 207 requires the OTP metric to to determine whether a train is below the standard. show OTP by host railroad in routes See Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 863 with multiple host railroads. In support, 5 For example, one commenter stated that OTP on F.3d 816, 826 (8th Cir. 2017). Congress also multi-host routes should be measured against the assigned STB with the responsibility to determine these commenters cited language in run time for each host railroad line segment (and whether and to what extent delays . . . are due to section 207(a), which states that the not against the scheduled departure and arrival causes that could reasonably be addressed’’ by the metrics ‘‘at a minimum, shall include time at each station). host railroad or by Amtrak. 49 U.S.C. 24308(f)(1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72976 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

performance. One commenter stated facto key stations.11 As discussed intermediate points, ..., the metric that the NPRM’s train delays metrics are elsewhere in this final rule, FRA finds does not measure performance in a way likely to get little attention compared to that, aside from predictable and broadly that captures whether a significant the customer OTP metric. FRA strongly understood seasonal trends and short- portion of Amtrak’s passengers actually disagrees. While the customer OTP term variability, the percentage of a arrived at their selected destinations on metric provides a train-level view of train’s detraining passengers at stations time. Such a metric would be an actual passenger train performance on a route is stable for purposes of unrepresentative measure of focused on the customer experience, the calculating customer OTP; therefore, performance.’’). train delays metric and the host running host railroads can identify key stations Another commenter stated the final time metric can help identify certain to maximize performance under the rule should adopt an all-stations OTP categories of delays, their frequency, customer OTP metric. metric that would measure train and their duration, which are central Another commenter suggested that performance at all stations on a route. inquiries to understanding and the existing, contractually negotiated Like an all-stations OTP metric, the improving passenger train performance, Amtrak train performance provisions customer OTP metric measures train as well as an STB investigation under 49 found in the host railroads’ operating performance at every station, and it also U.S.C. 24308(f). agreements with Amtrak are preferable recognizes the importance of reliability In addition, that STB can initiate an to the customer OTP metric because the at stations serving more passengers. investigation certainly does not mean host railroads often perform well under Customer OTP also offers host railroads that an investigation will be sought. As those contract terms (whereas these more flexibility in adjusting recovery acknowledged by several commenters, same trains don’t perform as well when time 12 based on passenger load versus an STB investigation results in resource measured by the customer OTP metric). recovery needed for every station stop.13 expenditures for affected entities, and it The commenter stated that Amtrak and For these reasons, FRA determined that has an uncertain outcome. A decision to a host railroad should be allowed to the customer OTP metric is preferable to initiate such an investigation is not develop and apply alternative OTP an all-stations OTP metric, and is made lightly. As a result, it is not standards, such as the existing adopting a customer OTP metric as reasonable to assume that every train contractual performance provisions, or proposed in the NPRM. below the minimum OTP standard use mutually agreed upon times as a A commenter stated that FRA should would be investigated. Furthermore, it baseline to measure OTP. The have considered the impact of the is also not reasonable to assume that an commenter’s proposal is counter to customer OTP metric and standard on STB investigation would be sought section 207’s requirement to establish a the host railroads’ various operating against a host railroad where the train metric to measure intercity passenger agreements with Amtrak, including the delays metric and the host running time train performance, as it would result in performance incentive payments made metric data do not support an many different measures of performance under such agreements. FRA is not a investigation. FRA is confident STB can that would be, at best, difficult to party to these agreements, nor does FRA identify delays for which host railroads understand and, at worst, entirely have knowledge of their details, as the are not responsible when armed with misleading. A single OTP metric and parties consider the details of the data from these metrics. standard allows stakeholders to agreements confidential business In lieu of a customer OTP metric, compare train performance, which may information, and have not shared them several commenters proposed a key be important to evaluating connectivity with FRA. More importantly, this final stations OTP metric that would measure information, among other things, and rule does not require a change to the train performance at key stations on a ensures all trains are held to the same performance incentive payment host railroad.10 The customer OTP standard. provisions in these operating metric measures train OTP for every Furthermore, FRA believes the OTP agreements; Amtrak and the host passenger at every station (not just metric should measure train railroads may continue to maintain passengers at designated stations), performance from the eyes of the those provisions as they see fit. recognizes the relative importance of customer. The customer OTP metric is In addition, to the extent a host reliability at stations serving more meaningful, precisely because it is railroad is concerned with receiving passengers, and provides flexibility if reflective of the passenger train’s actual lower performance incentive payments demand changes. In contrast, a key performance. The commenter’s proposal as a result of this final rule, this final stations OTP metric fails to recognize would routinely produce the anomalous rule does not prohibit a host railroad the importance of customers who do not result stated elsewhere in this final rule and Amtrak from revising the use a key station. Such a metric would of a passenger train that arrives late at performance incentive payments to have additional challenges, including stations yet has good ‘‘OTP.’’ See align better with the customer OTP how to identify key stations. For these Application of the National Railroad metric and standard.14 Indeed, section reasons, FRA determined that the Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. customer OTP metric is superior to a 24308(a)—Canadian National Railway 12 Recovery time means time added to a schedule Company, STB Docket No. FD 35743 at to help a train ‘‘recover’’ to published schedule on- key stations OTP metric. With that said, time operation in the event that it encounters the customer OTP metric resembles a 10 (Aug. 9, 2019) (‘‘In general, if an OTP delays. key stations OTP metric because metric only includes checkpoints at the 13 One commenter stated that under a customer stations with many detraining final station and two or three select OTP metric it is not reasonable to believe a host passengers have greater influence on the railroad would agree to a schedule that did not achieve OTP at all stations. Although Amtrak and train’s customer OTP and serve as de 11 See Application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)— a host railroad may agree on a schedule that reliably Canadian National Railway Company, STB Docket achieves OTP at all stations, the customer OTP 10 Another commenter suggested a key stations No. FD 35743 at 11, FN 25 (Aug. 9, 2019) (‘‘An OTP metric provides greater flexibility to the parties by OTP metric combined with changes to the Amtrak- metric that measures the percentage of passengers allowing them to focus on those stations with host railroad operating agreement to preserve a that arrive at their destination stations on time greater numbers of detraining passengers. similar contractual performance payment regime. could—in some circumstances—allow for greater 14 As STB stated, ‘‘[i]t is not reasonable for an As stated elsewhere in this final rule, this final rule host railroad operational flexibility and create an incentives and penalties system to have at its does not prohibit Amtrak and a host railroad from incentive structure more closely tied to the service foundation a performance metric that fails to revising their operating agreement. delivery to the end consumer, the passenger.’’). account for the OTP at stations central to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72977

207(c) provides that, to the extent Urbana, IL represented 47.8% of the passengers reliably above the 80 percent practicable, Amtrak and its host rail total passengers on the train in the OTP standard. Similarly, another carriers shall incorporate the metrics fourth quarter 2019, and 50.4% of total commenter stated that where an existing and standards into their access and passengers in the first quarter 2020. partnership exists between a State and service agreements (the operating Despite this variation in ridership, a railroad, such as a service outcome agreements). See also Union Pac. R.R. Champaign-Urbana ranked as the agreement, the OTP metric and standard Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 863 F.3d at highest volume station for detraining should be used to inform and 826 (‘‘The § 207 on-time-performance passengers for these two quarters complement that agreement, rather than metric was, to the extent practicable, to compared to all other stations on the to supersede it. As stated, the 80 percent be incorporated into Amtrak’s contracts route. Similarly, Carbondale, IL ranks as customer OTP standard is a minimum with host railroads.’’). the second highest volume station for standard. FRA expects many services to A commenter stated that because the detraining passengers, with 27.1% of operate more reliably and this final rule customer OTP metric is based on the total passengers on the train in the is not intended to obstruct the unique passenger loads it may be an unstable fourth quarter 2019, and 25.6% of total performance arrangements that may metric (as it may vary on a daily basis). passengers in the first quarter 2020. The exist between host railroads and States. Another commenter stated that this relative importance of the station (i.e., Some commenters expressed concern instability would result in lengthening the station rank) along the route seldom that the customer OTP metric would schedules. A commenter also stated that changes despite fluctuation in the delay commuter rail trains sharing the the aggregation of customer OTP data percentage of detraining passengers. As right-of-way with Amtrak trains due to could produce distorted results showing stated above, if carefully analyzed, the Amtrak trains ‘‘waiting for time’’ (i.e., a train service as more reliable or less ridership data will allow host railroads when a train arrives early to a station reliable than is actually the case. And, to identify de facto ‘‘key stations’’ to and waits until its scheduled departure another commenter stated that the concentrate performance to ensure most time) at intermediate stations. A customer OTP metric will likely result passengers arrive at their destination on- commenter stated that such an action in in false positives for trains that depart time (thereby meeting the 80% high density territory could create a net late from congested Amtrak terminals. standard). reduction in rail line capacity. A commenter stated that host FRA does not agree with these Similarly, other commenters stated that railroads do not have adequate notice of commenters that customer OTP will be aligning schedules to a customer OTP unreliable for two reasons. First, Amtrak the customer OTP metric because the metric is based on the number of metric enlarges an Amtrak train’s has provided some ridership data to dispatch footprint by redistributing host railroads and the ridership data detraining passengers at a station, which the host railroads would receive after recovery time across intermediate metric in this final rule requires Amtrak stations, which threatens overall to provide additional data to host the fact. As noted above, there is generally not much change in network fluidity, decreases the host railroads to allow them to understand railroad’s ability to manage slow orders, 15 proportional ridership by station by and monitor passenger loads. Second, and will result in longer schedules. FRA while the actual number of detraining route (real-time ridership data is of limited utility), and host railroads disagrees. First, delays waiting for time passengers may change at a station over at intermediate stations can be time, the percentage of passengers already received a year of performance data on , 2020. Furthermore, as foreclosed by an accurate schedule. detraining at a station is generally Second, adjusting train schedules to 16 described below, this final rule includes stable. Based on FRA’s review of the align with the customer OTP standard non-public ridership data Amtrak made a ridership data metric that, in part, 17 requires Amtrak to provide ridership does not mean that recovery time must available to the host railroads, FRA be added for each station. Recovery time found little movement in a station’s data to host railroads. In addition, the final rule provides that the customer should, for example, be included across relative volume of detraining a schedule to protect performance at passengers. For example, there were OTP standard shall apply to a train beginning, at the earliest, on the first larger volume stations, locations where 15,714 total passengers on Amtrak train passenger trains can wait clear of main #391 (on the Illini/Saluki route) in the full calendar quarter after May 17, 2021. Amtrak and the host railroads will also tracks, where stations are farther apart, fourth quarter of 2019, and 10,481 total or where trains are more likely to incur passengers in the first quarter of 2020, have at least a further five months to evaluate two years of relevant ridership operational delays. However, spreading a difference of 5,233 passengers or 33%. existing recovery time linearly across a Passengers detraining at Champaign- data to work towards certifying train schedules, consistent with the data schedule would be inefficient and would be more likely to result in trains passenger experience for a significant portion of sharing requirement in this final rule. Amtrak passengers.’’ Application of the National This commenter further suggested an waiting at stations for departure times if Railroad Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. alternative OTP metric that measures a train performed well on a given 24308(a)—Canadian National Railway Company, OTP by the train’s arrival at designated segment that included additional, STB Docket No. FD 35743 at 10 (Aug. 9, 2019). check-points (similar to the approach unnecessary recovery time. 15 The percentage of detraining passengers to each station on a route can be calculated from the used in the commenter’s operating Furthermore, in the case of capacity information Amtrak is currently providing to host agreement with Amtrak), which it impacts great enough to warrant railroads for their internal use. See FRA–2019– alleged would provide adequate notice. schedule change, reductions of time to 0069–0295. This data provides quarterly detraining For the reasons stated above, FRA remove these waits would be in both totals by station by train. parties’ favor. Third, Amtrak trains on 16 Station rank in absolute terms may also be a disagrees with this approach and helpful tool for schedule planning in connection believes that the OTP standard should many routes avoid large numbers of with the customer OTP metric. be based on the passenger experience. station stops in districts already well 17 While Amtrak does not make this ridership A commenter stated that a single OTP served by commuter operations. Lastly, data publicly available, Amtrak shared this data metric may fail to address certain State- Amtrak trains should not be given more with relevant host railroads. See FRA–2019–0069– 0295. Amtrak also consented to this minimal public supported trains that have negotiated time between stations in commuter train disclosure of ridership data to provide this local expectations of performance with territory than the commuter trains illustrative example. a host railroad and that currently serve themselves. In these types of territories

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72978 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

there should be little slack time written Amtrak detraining counts, including B. Train Schedules into the schedule, consistent with Metrolink and Virginia Railway Express standard railroad operating best cross-honors. While the NPRM did not propose any metrics related to train schedules, FRA practices. For all these reasons, FRA is A commenter stated a concern that, received many comments about train confident that the professional under the customer OTP metric, Amtrak schedules. Some commenters stated that railroaders at Amtrak and the host passengers on cancelled trains would be the final rule should require Amtrak and railroads, whose daily job it is to counted as late customer arrivals at their develop train schedules, can account for ticketed station if service to their a host railroad to certify that a train’s the issues raised by these commenters. ticketed station is cancelled. In this schedule aligns with the customer OTP Another commenter suggested that case, a passenger on a train that has had metric and standard before the customer the customer OTP metric penalizes their ticket scanned and the service to OTP standard takes effect. STB, for trains that perform well according to the their ticketed station canceled on less example, supported requiring properly performance provisions in their Amtrak- than four hours advance notice is aligned schedules before an OTP host railroad bilateral operating counted as a late customer arrival at standard takes effect. In support, agreement and is not consistent with the their ticketed station by design, as it commenters stated that many of intent of section 207. In support, the reflects the customer’s experience.18 In Amtrak’s existing schedules are not a commenter, a host railroad, stated that Amtrak fiscal year 2019, the number of meaningful benchmark for measuring it receives payments under its contract passengers impacted by en route customer OTP because they were not with Amtrak for the performance of designed for a customer OTP metric, trains operating on its right-of-way, but cancellations to their detraining stations was 0.04% of Amtrak ridership (14,439 and they are outdated and unrealistic. is concerned these same trains will not As a result, these commenters stated, perform well as measured by a customer impacted passengers divided by 32,519,241 total passengers). the use of the customer OTP metric to OTP metric. FRA disagrees. Put simply, measure Amtrak schedules would a measure that is not focused on when A commenter stated that the customer produce misleading train performance a passenger train arrives at a station is OTP metric should be reported by train data, and may result in unnecessary not measuring the on-time performance only, and not by train and by route. STB litigation. of the passenger train. FRA encourages However, it is important to maintain Amtrak and the host railroads to work route reporting because the customer is Further, some commenters stated that toward aligning the bilateral operating less likely to know what train number it would be challenging to renegotiate agreements with the customer OTP they are on, and are more likely to know some schedules due to disagreements metric and standard to ensure the route they travel. about train scheduling and challenges performance is measured, and Lastly, a commenter stated that the with existing schedules, among other appropriately incentivized, in a customer OTP metric and standard reasons. Several commenters stated that consistent manner. See PRIIA § 207(c). should consider the fluidity of the entire the final rule should provide an initial A commenter sought clarity regarding network in determining whether a host six-month period for Amtrak and the whether the customer OTP metric is railroad has given an Amtrak train host railroads to certify schedules, and measured by the actual number of preference. Preference under 49 U.S.C. should extend this period for the passengers detraining at a station, or by 24308(c) is determined by STB, not pendency of any dispute resolution the number of tickets that Amtrak sells FRA. See 49 U.S.C. 24308(c) and (f)(2). process. Commenters also stated that the to a specific arrival station. Amtrak The commenter also stated that the final rule should incorporate a dispute measures detraining passengers by the customer OTP metric should consider resolution process to address schedules number of passengers actually traveling non-Amtrak passengers, in addition to in dispute. Several commenters also on the train, as determined by Amtrak passengers. As described further stated that the dispute resolution conductor ticket collections via below, FRA developed the metrics for process should automatically certify a electronic ticket scanning for a specific Amtrak intercity passenger train schedule if the host railroad refused to arrival station. Passengers who have operations, which is consistent with participate and, conversely, should reserved a seat, but elect not to travel, section 207. withhold certification if Amtrak refused are not reflected in passenger counts. to participate. Some commenters stated Another commenter wondered whether 18 it is possible for Amtrak to calculate In Amtrak’s system, a cancellation with less that the final rule should include a than four hours advance notice represents an customer OTP accurately where Amtrak schedule recertification process to unplanned en route event. Amtrak established the ensure ongoing schedule validity. customers share tickets in metro areas four-hour benchmark to recognize that a with commuter passenger railroads (e.g., cancellation with less than four hours advance FRA generally agrees with many of in Los Angeles with Metrolink notice would not give the customer sufficient time these observations (although not all). to make alternative travel arrangements. The four- commuter rail services). Most hour benchmark is the same used for several other FRA agrees that Amtrak and the host passengers traveling on Amtrak under a measures of Amtrak performance. The cancellation railroads should align schedules with cross-honor arrangement with a need not include the entire train or trip such as in the customer OTP metric.19 Where a commuter rail operator are included in an emergency detour situation, where selected stations may be bypassed (and passengers bussed to train’s OTP is measured against the train the customer OTP calculation (in most their original detraining location) but the train schedule provided to the public, the cases, the conductor records the origin continues to its final destination. Passengers who train’s schedule should be aligned with and destination station for the cross- are required to take a bus bridge to their final the OTP measure used to evaluate the honor rider as they board). Amtrak destination as a result of an unplanned cancellation are counted as late. Amtrak makes every effort to train’s performance. Historically, maintains cross-honor agreements with get these passengers to their desired destination, several commuter passenger railroads typically by bus or by re-accommodation on another 19 An OTP metric, in part, can inform the across the country, and riders traveling train. Implementing these alternative travel plans formulation of a train schedule. For example, a under those arrangements represent due to an en route event nearly always results in customer OTP metric may encourage a schedule 2.4% of total Amtrak ridership. passengers arriving late to their final destination. with more recovery time at those stations with more They are therefore counted as late to their de-boarding passengers, while an endpoint OTP Approximately two-thirds of these detraining station and are included as such in metric may encourage a schedule with more cross-honor passengers are included in customer OTP calculations. recovery time at the endpoints of a line segment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72979

Amtrak’s published train schedules thereafter. Second, the final rule further encourages the parties to certify have not been designed with a customer provides more time to negotiate schedules by requiring Amtrak and a OTP metric in mind. Accordingly, this schedules by delaying application of the host railroad to transmit monthly letters final rule: Establishes a certified customer OTP standard until the first signed by their chief executive officers schedule metric that addresses full calendar quarter six months after to Congress (and others) when they have alignment with the customer OTP publication of the final rule. Third, the an uncertified schedule after six metric and standard; provides more final rule encourages the parties to months.23 These letters will make time for Amtrak and the host railroads certify schedules timely and to resolve policymakers aware of the status of the to negotiate schedules; and allows for a disagreements by further delaying train schedule,24 and help ensure that a dispute resolution process if the parties application of the OTP standard when a sense of urgency is maintained by the disagree.20 non-binding dispute resolution process parties to resolve the disagreement. The certified schedule metric first is engaged. Specifically, if a train Lastly, the certified schedule metric requires Amtrak to report the number of schedule is reported as a disputed recognizes that ongoing coordination certified schedules, uncertified schedule during the first six months, between Amtrak and a host railroad is schedules, and disputed schedules, by then the customer OTP standard does needed as certified schedules are train, by route, and by host railroad.21 not apply until the second full calendar impacted by future events.25 The This information is reported monthly quarter following those six months.22 graphic below provides an overview of for six months, at 12 months, and yearly Fourth, the certified schedule metric the certified schedule metric process.

A commenter stated that a schedule engage in a dispute resolution process, engagement of a non-binding dispute dispute resolution process should allow nor does the final rule attempt to resolution process.26 The resolution of a for both non-binding and binding prescribe the process the parties use if schedule disagreement must be dispute resolution (and should not they do choose to engage a dispute achieved as quickly as possible. The require binding dispute resolution resolution process. However, the final final rule encourages Amtrak and host only). Here, the final rule does not rule only affords delay of the customer railroads who are serious about finding require Amtrak or a host railroad to OTP standard beyond six months for common ground on a schedule to

20 A certified schedule metric is consistent with binding dispute resolution process is admissible in to any new Amtrak train service initiated after section 207’s direction to measure on-time Surface Transportation Board investigations under application of the customer OTP standard (and that performance, as the schedule is a benchmark of 49 U.S.C. 24308(f). If a published train schedule is train will be subject to the certified schedule train performance. reported as a disputed schedule under subsection metric). 21 Although the certified schedule metric is (c)(1), then it remains a disputed schedule until 26 The final rule only affords delay of the reported by host railroad (excluding switching and designated as a certified schedule. terminal railroads), FRA encourages all the host 23 If a train schedule is reported as an uncertified customer OTP standard beyond six months for railroads for a route to work together in aligning the schedule at six months, twelve months, or yearly disputed schedules. After the six-month period, the train schedule. thereafter, then Amtrak and the host railroad must customer OTP standard applies to both certified 22 The final rule defines the term disputed transmit a joint letter and status update, signed by schedules and uncertified schedules. There may be schedule to mean a published train schedule for their respective chief executive officers, to each a scenario where one host railroad for a train has which a specific change is sought: (1) That is the U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative whose district a disputed schedule (to which the customer OTP only subject of a non-binding dispute resolution is served by the train, in addition to several other standard is not yet applied) and another host process led by a neutral third-party and involving government offices. This joint letter and status railroad for that train has either a certified schedule Amtrak and one or more host railroads; (2) that is update must identify the Amtrak published train or an uncertified schedule. As the customer OTP schedule(s) at issue and the plan and expectation the only subject of a non-binding dispute resolution metric is reported by train (and by route), in this date to resolve the disagreement(s), among other process led by a neutral third-party that has been situation, FRA will not include customer OTP initiated by one or more host railroads and Amtrak details. metric data in the quarterly report for that train has not consented to participate in the process 24 In addition, FRA will post such joint letters on within 30 calendar days; or (3) that is the only its website. during the time when there is a disputed schedule subject of a non-binding dispute resolution process 25 FRA recognizes the importance of reviewing (to which the customer OTP standard is not yet led by a neutral third-party that has been initiated schedules periodically to ensure their integrity. applied) for some portion of the train’s route. FRA by Amtrak and the host railroad has not consented However, the customer OTP standard would encourages Amtrak and all of the host railroads of to participate in the process within 30 calendar continue to apply during a schedule review period. a train to work together when evaluating the days. The written decision resulting from a non- In addition, the customer OTP standard will apply published train schedules.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.006 72980 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

engage in a dispute resolution process if parties’ ability to engage in confidential A commenter stated that there should they are unable to reach agreement discussions, among other things). be a test period for new schedules. With amongst themselves.27 While non- Section 207 does not require schedule the application provisions for the OTP binding, the written decision resulting certification and, indeed, section 213 standard in this final rule, FRA believes from a non-binding dispute resolution acknowledges that STB investigations Amtrak and the host railroads have process may facilitate resolution and may include STB review of the extent to sufficient time to test and negotiate train may also assist the Surface which scheduling contributed to delay. schedules. FRA will not dictate a Transportation Board in a 49 U.S.C. 49 U.S.C. 24308(f)(1). process for negotiating schedules, but it 24308(f) investigation. While parties Many comments addressed the expects both parties will use data-driven may seek binding dispute resolution, NPRM’s train schedule principles, processes, such as modeling, this final rule does not include that which recommended, but did not simulation, and real-world testing to process given the broad array of impacts require, alignment of train schedules validate any proposed schedule that may occur from a schedule required with the customer OTP metric. Some changes. by arbitration, such as, among other commenters stated that the principles One commenter stated that a new things, significant additional operating should be removed, others supported schedule aligned with the customer expenses or revenue losses (for Amtrak their inclusion, and still others OTP metric should take into account the and its partners), commercially suggested adding to the principles. This existing contractual performance infeasible times of operation or final rule does not include the train payments that may exist between duration, and conflicting schedules on schedule principles. FRA determined Amtrak and a host railroad under their multi-host railroad routes. these principles are no longer necessary operating agreement. It is unnecessary Some commenters stated it would be given the final rule’s inclusion of a to require new schedules to account for unfair to apply a customer OTP certified schedule metric; the NPRM’s contractual performance payments standard to a schedule that is not train schedule principles would only because any new schedule will be aligned with the customer OTP metric serve to complicate the process of agreed to by Amtrak and the host (because the metric could produce determining train schedules for Amtrak railroad, and they may consider the misleading train performance data that and the host railroads. implications of the schedule on future could ultimately result in an STB performance payments, and can work to Several commenters stated that State investigation).28 A commenter also adjust those payments to align with the sponsors of intercity passenger rail stated that Amtrak has no incentive to new schedule. should be included in Amtrak and host adjust its schedules, and other A commenter stated that Amtrak must railroad schedule alignment commenters expressed concern about provide the same consideration to other discussions. FRA agrees that State lengthening schedules. FRA host railroads that Amtrak grants itself sponsors are important stakeholders in understands that Amtrak and host on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and these discussions. Although the final railroads have some competing adjust scheduled running times to rule does not require nor prohibit a interests. This final rule balances those accommodate infrastructure work as interests consistent with section 207. As State sponsor’s involvement, FRA appropriate. The commenter stated that explained, the final rule encourages the expects that a State sponsor may be Amtrak regularly adjusts scheduled parties to agree on certified schedules invited to participate consistent with running times for its trains on the while not explicitly requiring them. In their existing agreement(s). Based on the segments of the NEC that it maintains addition, a host railroad or Amtrak may comments received, FRA understands and dispatches but does not grant initiate a timely non-binding dispute that Amtrak and many of the host similar running-time adjustments to resolution process (regardless of railroads have existing agreements with Amtrak trains traversing other host whether the other party agrees to State sponsors that relate to schedules. railroad territory on the NEC. participate in that process), which Those agreements remain in place and Considerations for running time impact would temporarily delay application of are not altered or negated by this final are more properly addressed in the the OTP standard to a train. The non- rule. operating agreement between the binding dispute resolution process will Commenters also stated that Amtrak parties. produce a written decision that will schedule modifications should not Lastly, a commenter stated that inform Amtrak and a host railroad in compromise the standardized schedules Amtrak must provide the percentage of aligning the schedule with the customer Amtrak has agreed to with commuter recovery time per route segment. FRA OTP metric. The final rule empowers agencies in dense commuting territories, sees limited value in this metric and it Amtrak and the host railroads to resolve as these existing schedules allow for the is not included in this final rule. schedule disputes without being overly optimal use of capacity and ensure Together, a host railroad and Amtrak prescriptive (and without government reliable operations for both Amtrak and can arrive at an efficient use of recovery involvement that could hamper the commuter rail operations. Similarly, a time, which is an inherent element in commenter stated that Amtrak, host any schedule. Once a schedule is 27 The final rule does not dictate a specific railroads, and commuter services must completed, a host railroad will know process beyond that it is a non-binding dispute work cooperatively to update schedules how much recovery time exists on each resolution process led by a neutral third-party. For in the interest of providing achievable example, the final rule does not address how the line segment for each train and between parties pay the fees and costs associated with such OTP goals. FRA recognizes the which stations the recovery time has a process (although an equal share of such costs important role commuter rail services been placed. would be one reasonable approach), nor does the play in the passenger rail network. This final rule address the number of arbitrators C. Train Delays (although the associated costs for an arbitration in final rule does not prohibit commuter the final rule’s section regarding economic impacts agency involvement in Amtrak-host FRA recognizes that the customer are based on a panel of three arbitrators). railroad schedule discussions, and any OTP metric and standard should be 28 In a related comment, a commenter stated that Amtrak and/or host railroad agreements accompanied by metrics that provide Congress only intended for a limited number of with commuter agencies remain in place additional useful information about a Amtrak trains to be subject to an STB investigation. FRA is not aware of any language in section 207, and are not altered or negated by this train’s performance. There are factors or PRIIA, to support this interpretation. final rule. that contribute to poor OTP on a route

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72981

that are not evident from measuring within each route.30 The NPRM further non-Amtrak host responsible delays station arrival times alone. For example, proposed to define the terms ‘‘Amtrak- disputed by the host railroad and not an intercity passenger rail train responsible delays,’’ ‘‘host-responsible resolved by Amtrak. This additional dispatched by multiple hosts may delays,’’ and ‘‘third party delays.’’ information captures host-responsible experience delays on one host railroad Many commenters stated that the delays disputed by the host railroad but not on another host railroad. train delays metric should report delays pursuant to its operating agreement with Because the customer OTP metric does by delay category (i.e., Amtrak- Amtrak and not resolved by Amtrak. It not easily distinguish performance on responsible delays, host-responsible is important to note that FRA views the individual host railroads (including delays, and third party delays). Several host railroad’s National Railroad Amtrak), this final rule also establishes commenters also stated that the train Passenger Corporation (NRPC) metrics to measure train delays, station delays metric should measure Amtrak operations officer as a critically performance, and host running time, to delays as operator and as host railroad, important position at the host railroad provide more information about the in total and separately. Some that demands direct access to the host customer experience, train performance commenters also stated that the final railroad’s chief operations officer and 29 rule should report delays by root cause on individual host railroads, and the other senior leadership.31 In addition to and that, in instances where Amtrak and minutes and causes of delay. reporting the number of disputed delay the host railroads disagree on the causes minutes, the final rule also provides that 1. Train Delays of delay, FRA should publish both the train delays metric is reported by The NPRM proposed to define a train findings. In addition, several delay code by: Total minutes of delay; delays metric as the total minutes of commenters stated that Amtrak and the delay for all Amtrak-responsible delays, host railroad should work together on a Amtrak-responsible delays; Amtrak’s host-responsible delays, and third-party regular basis to identify and agree on the host-responsible delays; Amtrak’s host- delays, for the host railroad territory delay data and the delay causes. responsible delays and Amtrak- In response to comments on the responsible delays, combined; non- 29 To the customer, there may be no discernable NPRM, the final rule includes a revised Amtrak host-responsible delays; and difference as to whether they are on one host train delays metric. First, the train third party delays. The table below is a railroad’s territory or another’s while traveling on delays metric in the final rule reports sample train delay metric chart to a route. However, most intercity passenger rail further illustrate the metric. routes involve one or more host railroads. This final disputed delay minutes, which are those rule establishes metrics that measure route-level performance reflecting the customer experience and 30 In response to a comment seeking clarification, 31 If the host railroad does not have an NRPC that measure aspects of performance of the the train delays metric measures the minutes of officer, then another officer with the appropriate individual host railroads within the route segments delay for each individual host railroad territory expertise and authority at the host railroad would that they control. within a route. fulfill this responsibility.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72982 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

One commenter stated that all particular delay. FRA also understands length. The commenter proposed that departure and arrival times at each that some host railroads have processes minutes of delay should be reported for Amtrak station should be automated so and data systems in place through each host railroad territory that exceeds that manual data collections by Amtrak which they look closely at delay causes, 0.1 miles in length to ensure that delays conductors are minimized or and that other host railroads do not have on short segments (frequently near eliminated. FRA agrees that Amtrak such processes or systems and approach terminals) are also reflected, as these should use automated methods to the issue in a different way. The train delays can have an outsized effect on collect data to the greatest extent delays metric includes the reporting of customer OTP. FRA agrees. Amtrak practicable. In fact, Amtrak currently disputed delays where Amtrak and the collects delay data on all segments of a uses an automated electronic delay host railroad are unable to agree on a route regardless of segment length. The reporting system based primarily on a delay category pursuant to the existing delay data for all segments are available GPS-based system that automatically process for delay attribution in the to all host railroad partners via on-line logs arrival, departure, and passing Amtrak-host railroad operating access, and in some cases, automated times at stations and other locations, agreement.32 The metric’s reporting of data feeds. FRA’s quarterly reports will and calculates the number of minutes of disputed delays ensures transparent include delays for all segments of the delay above pure run time within each reporting, while not prescribing an route. segment of an Amtrak route. See additional process for the parties to use Application of the National Railroad to reach agreement or inserting FRA in 2. Station Performance the process to adjudicate disputes. FRA Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. The NPRM proposed an average 24308(a)—Canadian National Railway expects that Amtrak and the host railroad’s NRPC officer (or equivalent) minutes late per late customer metric as Company, STB Docket No. FD 35743 at the average minutes late that late 23 (Aug. 9, 2019). will be in frequent communication about train delays. customers arrive at their detraining Several commenters gave examples of Lastly, one commenter stated that in stations, reported by route (excluding types of delays that should not be other FRA and Amtrak reports, delay on-time customers that arrive within 15 designated as host-responsible delays, metrics have not been published for minutes of their scheduled time). A such as passenger delays to Amtrak segments that are less than 15 miles in commenter stated that this metric does trains while at a station, and other not provide information about the commenters expressed concern about 32 See Application of the National Railroad location of problems causing the delay Amtrak’s identification of root causes of Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)— or how to fix them, and that it does not delay. FRA understands that Amtrak Canadian National Railway Company, STB Docket differentiate between the performance of No. FD 35743 at 23–24 (Aug. 9, 2019) (Describing and the host railroads may disagree on the delay cause identification process under an individual host railroads. Another how to assign responsibility for any existing operating agreement). commenter proposed that this metric

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.007 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72983

should reflect average minutes late of all minutes late per late customer proposed metric by providing customers (not just the late customers). calculation excludes on-time customers information on all passengers, not just In response to these comments, FRA that arrive not later than 15 minutes late passengers, by route, train, and is renaming the metric as a station after their scheduled time and reflects station. It will offer FRA, hosts, and performance metric, and revising it to the severity of the delayed train, as Amtrak customers more information on measure the number of detraining experienced by the customer. To clarify, the location of performance problems passengers, the number of late a customer who arrives at their and allow them to calculate the passengers, and the average minutes late detraining station 16 minutes late would customer OTP metric. that late customers arrive at their be included in this calculation and The table below is a sample station detraining stations, reported by route, would be recorded as 16 minutes late. performance metric chart to further by train, and by station. The average The revised metric expands upon the illustrate the metric.

3. Host Running Time defined as the scheduled duration of a operation. The host running time metric train’s travel on a host railroad, as set shows the performance of a host The final rule establishes a host forth in the Amtrak schedule skeleton, railroad against the time allowed for in running time metric to measure the and the actual running time is defined the schedule and provides more insight average actual running time and the as the actual elapsed travel time of a into a host railroad’s operating impact median actual running time compared train’s travel on a host railroad, between on OTP. This metric is an indication of with the scheduled running time the departure time at the first reporting which host railroads may be responsible between the first and final reporting point for a host railroad segment and the for chronic performance below standard points for a host railroad segment set arrival time at the reporting point at the and which ones are not. The metric will forth in the Amtrak schedule skeleton,33 end of the host railroad segment. As not explain the cause of delays, nor will reported by route, by train, and by host delays may or may not cause a train to it assign responsibility for them. railroad (excluding switching and be late on its schedule, it is important The table below is a sample host terminal railroads). For a given host to measure the performance of host running time metric chart to illustrate railroad, the scheduled running time is railroads against the scheduled the metric.

33 The final rule defines schedule skeleton to indicate, for each train, the: (a) Time of arrival at of a host railroad; and (c) pure running time, mean a schedule grid used by Amtrak and host the point of entry to the rail lines of a host railroad, recovery time, and miscellaneous time within a railroads to communicate the public schedule of an and time of departure from the point of exit from segment. Amtrak train and the schedule of operations of an the rail lines of a host railroad; (b) dwell time at Amtrak train on host railroads. Schedule skeletons each station and servicing location on the rail lines

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.008 72984 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Several commenters stated that the minutes of delay per 10,000 train miles some commenters stated that this data NPRM did not distinguish between host for all Amtrak-responsible and host- was not sufficient because it was railroads on multi-host railroad routes, responsible delays, for the host railroad aggregated and did not show station- and that delays on one host railroad can territory within each route. Several specific performance or the number of be carried over to a subsequent host commenters stated that this metric is passengers detraining at each station. railroad. FRA believes the host running not informative as it does not provide In consideration of these comments, time metric specifically addresses this data about the location of delays or how the final rule includes a ridership data concern by showing train performance to fix them. One commenter stated that metric. The ridership data metric is the over a host railroad as compared to the the metric can be helpful when number of host railroads to whom train’s scheduled running time, thereby comparing delays among different Amtrak has provided ridership data, distinguishing host railroads on multi- routes. The final rule includes this reported by host railroad and by month. host railroad routes. metric. Minutes of Amtrak-responsible In addition, the ridership data metric Lastly, two commenters also stated delay and host-responsible delay have requires that, not later than December that a late, out-of-slot Amtrak train can historically been normalized by 10,000 16, 2020, Amtrak must provide host itself cause additional delays on the train miles to compare performance railroad-specific ridership data to each receiving host railroad.34 One more easily on routes of varying length. host railroad for the preceding 24 commenter stated that the final rule This calculation is helpful when months. Also, on the 15th day of every should provide host railroads with an assessing an individual railroad’s month following , 2020, ‘‘out-of-slot delay tolerance’’ in performance on a route that has more Amtrak must provide host railroad- calculating OTP that would account for than one host. specific ridership data to each host Amtrak trains that arrive late to the host D. Ridership Data railroad for the preceding month. The railroad and miss their scheduled slot. final rule defines the term ridership data FRA disagrees. Amtrak trains that Many commenters stated that the final to mean, in a machine-readable format: operate out-of-slot may pose operating rule must require Amtrak to provide The total number of passengers, by train issues in certain scheduled network host railroads with sufficient data to and by day; the station-specific number areas where train operation distances calculate and monitor customer OTP. of detraining passengers, reported by are very short, dense, and tightly Without this information, these host railroad whose railroad right-of- scheduled (i.e., commuter train territory commenters stated, host railroads would way serves the station, by train, and by around major metropolitan areas). not be able to verify the accuracy of day; and the station-specific number of However, outside of that situation, customer OTP data, monitor their on-time passengers reported by host effective communication between a host performance, identify improvement railroad whose railroad right-of-way railroad and Amtrak regarding an opportunities, or take corrective action. serves the station, by train, and by day. impending delay is generally the key to Commenters requested ridership data, A commenter stated that ridership mitigate the impact of an out-of-slot such as: Close to real-time access to data should be available to the public. Amtrak train. Further, as stated daily, station-specific Amtrak ridership FRA’s quarterly reports will be publicly elsewhere in this final rule, FRA data, including late arriving customers available. FRA also recognizes that the believes the most meaningful and the degree of lateness; daily ridership data may include information measurement of OTP is based on the numbers of detraining passengers for that Amtrak views as confidential/ customer experience of actually arriving each Amtrak train on a station-by- competitively sensitive. Although this at their destination on time, not station basis; four years of historical final rule requires Amtrak to provide obscured by other tolerance or relief. ridership data; the data underlying the ridership data to host railroads, Amtrak customer OTP metric calculation; 4. Train Delays per 10,000 Train Miles may impose reasonable conditions on relevant route data on performance and the host railroad’s use of these data. The NPRM proposed a train delays Amtrak customer travel; and Amtrak’s With that said, at a minimum, the host per 10,000 train miles metric as the ridership projections. railroad should be able to use these data During the NPRM’s comment period, in connection with negotiation, review, 34 FRA understands an out-of-slot train to be a adjustment, or analysis of relevant train that arrives after the time the host railroad Amtrak agreed to provide some anticipated and planned for the train in its ridership data to the host railroads. See Amtrak train schedules, or in operating plan. FRA–2019–0069–0295. In response, connection with an STB proceeding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.009 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72985

under 49 U.S.C. 24308(f) involving the format and data that Amtrak will share (however, this supporting data will not host railroad. with host railroads under this metric be publicly available). The tables below are samples of BILLING CODE 4910–06–P ridership data to illustrate further the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.010 72986 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C Some commenters stated that the host on a route is stable for purposes of A commenter stated that Amtrak must railroad’s current lack of access to calculating customer OTP. In addition, share the ridership data with its State- station-specific ridership data limited host railroads have received some supported route partners. FRA their ability to comment on the NPRM, additional ridership data and will encourages Amtrak to share ridership and that the customer OTP metric receive more ridership data under this data with its State-supported route would not provide host railroads final rule. partners; however, a requirement to adequate notice. As discussed, above, share such data is not directly related to A commenter stated that Amtrak any OTP standard adopted in this final this rulemaking. Amtrak’s provision of should describe how it collects the rule must be relevant to the actual data to its State partners should be ridership data and its passenger- consistent with existing agreements. passenger experience; the most relevant counting methodology. As stated, State entities that provide payments to of which is whether a passenger arrived Amtrak measures detraining passengers Amtrak under PRIIA section 209 at the destination on time. As noted by the number of passengers actually currently have access to some of previously, FRA finds that, aside from traveling on the train, as determined by Amtrak’s online data systems, which predictable and broadly understood conductor ticket collections via include train delay information and seasonal trends, the percentage of a electronic ticket scanning for a specific ridership information. train’s detraining passengers at stations arrival station. Passengers who have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.011 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72987

reserved a seat, but elect not to travel, finalized as proposed, are not discussed believes the metrics in this final rule are not reflected in passenger counts. again here. To review the complete provide sufficient information to assist Lastly, a commenter stated that host section-by-section analysis in the in such an STB investigation. railroads should be able to audit the NPRM, see 85 FR 20466. A commenter also proposed that FRA ridership data provided by Amtrak. FRA research the development of an determined the ridership data required Section 273.1 Purpose ‘‘assignable tax credit’’ for passenger by this final rule will allow a host This section provides that the final and highway competitive intermodal railroad to calculate the customer OTP rule establishes metrics and minimum freight routes to generate funding for rail independently. In addition, Amtrak’s standards for measuring the infrastructure. FRA appreciates the reported ridership data is subject to performance and service quality of comment; however, it is outside the verification by Amtrak’s Office of the intercity passenger train operations. scope of this rulemaking. Inspector General. A commenter sought clarity regarding Lastly, several commenters expressed non-Amtrak operators of intercity support for additional rail infrastructure IV. FRA Quarterly Reporting passenger rail trains and the metrics funding. The metrics in this final rule Section 207(b) requires FRA to (and under what circumstances the STB may assist decision makers in publish a quarterly report on the may initiate an investigation of identifying rail projects. performance and service quality of substandard performance). FRA intercity passenger train operations, developed the metrics for Amtrak Section 273.3 Definitions including Amtrak’s cost recovery, intercity passenger train operations, This final rule includes several new ridership, on-time performance and which is consistent with section 207’s and revised definitions, which are minutes of delay, causes of delay, on- many references to Amtrak, including: described here. board services, stations, facilities, The development of the metrics; the This section defines the term ‘‘actual equipment, and other services. FRA’s entities to consult regarding the running time’’ to mean the actual first quarterly report on intercity development of the metrics; specific elapsed travel time of a train’s travel on passenger train performance will cover metrics; FRA’s access to information; a host railroad, between the departure the first full calendar quarter 3 months and FRA’s quarterly reports. This final time at the first reporting point for a after the date of publication of the final rule does not apply to non-Amtrak host railroad segment and the arrival rule in the Federal Register. For operators of intercity passenger rail time at the reporting point at the end of example, if the final rule is published trains. Lastly, investigations of the host railroad segment. This on December 10, 2020, three months substandard performance under 49 definition is new to the final rule and after that date would be , 2021, U.S.C. 24308(f) are conducted by STB, supports the host running time metric. and the first full calendar quarter after and as such, STB alone determines This section defines the term that would run from , 2021 to when to initiate an investigation. ‘‘adjusted operating expenses’’ to mean , 2021. A commenter stated that FRA should Amtrak’s operating expenses adjusted to The first quarterly report will include put this rulemaking on hold and, exclude certain Amtrak expenses that data on the customer service metrics, together with the Federal Transit are not considered core to operating the the financial metrics, the public benefits Administration and STB, convene a business. The major exclusions are metrics, the certified schedule metric, seminar with freight and passenger depreciation, capital project related the ridership data metric, the train stakeholders to address expenditures not eligible for delays metric, and the train delays per comprehensively issues relating to the capitalization, non-cash portion of 10,000 train miles metric, but will not shared use of rail right-of-way. FRA pension and post-retirement benefits, include data on the customer OTP appreciates the comment, and while and Amtrak’s Office of Inspector metric, the station performance metric, such a meeting is outside the scope of General expenses (which are separately or the host running time metric. this rulemaking, FRA is always working appropriated). Adjusted operating Beginning with the second quarterly to advance rail policy and development, expenses do not include any operating report, FRA will report data on all of the both on its own and in partnership with expenses for State-supported routes that final rule’s metrics, unless a train other federal agencies. are paid for separately by States. This schedule is a disputed schedule on or A commenter stated that the Metrics definition is a revision of the definition before May 17, 2021. In that and Standards should not create a proposed in the NPRM to clarify its circumstance, FRA will report customer statutory preference for Amtrak over intent in response to commenters. OTP metric data for that particular train commuter operations or intercity This section defines the term beginning with the second full calendar passenger service operated by non- ‘‘certified schedule’’ to mean a quarter after May 17, 2021. In addition, Amtrak carriers. Amtrak does have published train schedule that Amtrak in that circumstance, FRA will also not certain statutory rights regarding the use and the host railroad jointly certify is report data for the station performance of facilities and preference over freight aligned with the customer on-time metric or the host running time metric transportation in using a rail line, performance metric and standard in in connection with the host railroad(s) among other things. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 273.5(a)(1) and (2). If a published train party to the disputed schedule. Unless 24308. The Metrics and Standards do schedule is reported as a certified otherwise specified, FRA will update not create any additional preference in schedule under § 273.5(c)(1), then it metrics on a quarterly basis. law for Amtrak. Another commenter cannot later be designated as an stated that FRA should identify actions uncertified schedule. This definition is V. Section-by-Section Analysis of that exhibit preference in the operating new to the final rule in support of Comments and Revisions From the environment to facilitate identification certified schedule metric. NPRM of those actions that do not exhibit This section defines the term This section responds to public preference and should be the subject of ‘‘disputed schedule’’ to mean a comments and identifies any changes enforcement. As an initial matter, STB published train schedule for which a made from the provisions as proposed is responsible for investigating specific change is sought: (i) That is the in the NPRM. Provisions that received substandard train performance under only subject of a non-binding dispute no comment, and are otherwise being PRIIA section 213. Further, FRA resolution process led by a neutral

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72988 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

third-party and involving Amtrak and This section defines the term Paragraph (c)(2) of this section one or more host railroads; (ii) that is ‘‘uncertified schedule’’ to mean a provides that, if a train schedule is the only subject of a non-binding published train schedule that has not reported as an uncertified schedule dispute resolution process led by a been reported as a certified schedule or under paragraph (c)(1)(vi), (vii), or (viii), neutral third-party that has been a disputed schedule under § 273.5(c)(1). then Amtrak and the host railroad must initiated by one or more host railroads This definition is new to the final rule transmit a joint letter and status report and Amtrak has not consented to and supports the certified schedule on the first of each month following the participate in the process within 30 metric. report, signed by their respective chief calendar days; or (iii) that is the only Section 273.5 On-Time Performance executive officers to each U.S. Senator subject of a non-binding dispute and Train Delays and U.S. Representative whose district resolution process led by a neutral is served by the train, the Chairman and third-party that has been initiated by Paragraph (a)(1) of this section Ranking Member of the Committee on Amtrak and the host railroad has not provides that the customer on-time Transportation and Infrastructure of the consented to participate in the process performance metric is the percentage of House of Representatives, the Chairman within 30 calendar days. The written all customers on an intercity passenger and Ranking Member of the Committee decision resulting from a non-binding rail train who arrive at their detraining on Commerce, Science, and dispute resolution process is admissible point no later than 15 minutes after Transportation of the Senate, the in Surface Transportation Board their published scheduled arrival time, Chairman and Ranking Member of the investigations under 49 U.S.C. 24308(f). reported by train and by route. Committee on Appropriations of the If a published train schedule is reported Paragraph (a)(2) of this section House of Representatives, the Chairman as a disputed schedule under provides a minimum standard for and Ranking Member of the Committee § 273.5(c)(1), then it remains a disputed customer on-time performance of 80 on Appropriations of the Senate, the percent for any 2 consecutive calendar schedule until reported as a certified Secretary of Transportation, and the quarters. This standard is consistent schedule. This definition is new to the Chairman of the Surface Transportation with the statutory requirement in 49 final rule and supports the certified Board, which states: (i) The Amtrak schedule metric. U.S.C. 24308(f)(1). Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section train schedule(s) at issue; (ii) the This section defines the term ‘‘host specific components of the train railroad’’ to mean a railroad that is provides that, except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii), the customer on- schedule(s) on which Amtrak and host directly accountable to Amtrak by railroad cannot reach agreement; (iii) agreement for Amtrak operations over a time performance standard shall apply to a train beginning on the first full Amtrak’s position regarding the railroad line segment. Amtrak is a host disagreed upon components of the train railroad of Amtrak trains and other calendar quarter after May 17, 2021. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section schedule(s); (iv) host railroad’s position trains operating over an Amtrak owned regarding the disagreed upon or controlled railroad line segment. For provides that, if a train schedule is a disputed schedule on or before May 17, components of the train schedule(s); purposes of the certified schedule and (v) Amtrak and the host railroad’s metric under § 273.5(c), Amtrak is not a 2021, then the customer on-time performance standard for the disputed plan and expectation date to resolve the host railroad. This definition is new to disagreement(s). The requirement to the final rule and supports several new schedule shall apply beginning on the second full calendar quarter after May transmit this joint letter and status and revised metrics. report ends for the train schedule at This section defines the term 17, 2021. issue when the uncertified schedule ‘‘ridership data’’ to mean, in a machine- Paragraph (b) of this section provides becomes a certified schedule. readable format: The total number of that the ridership data metric is the passengers, by train and by day; the number of host railroads to whom Paragraph (c)(3) of this section station-specific number of detraining Amtrak has provided ridership data provides that, when conditions have passengers, reported by host railroad consistent with this paragraph (b), changed that impact a certified whose railroad right-of-way serves the reported by host railroad and by month. schedule, Amtrak or a host railroad may station, by train, and by day; and the Not later than December 16, 2020, seek to modify the certified schedule. station-specific number of on-time Amtrak must provide host railroad- The customer on-time performance passengers reported by host railroad specific ridership data to each host standard in subsection (a)(2) remains in whose railroad right-of-way serves the railroad for the preceding 24 months. effect during the schedule negotiation station, by train, and by day. This On the 15th day of every month process. definition is new to the final rule and following Decmeber 16, 2020, Amtrak Paragraph (d) of this section provides supports the ridership data metric. must provide host railroad-specific that the train delays metric is the This section defines the term ridership data to each host railroad for minutes of delay for all Amtrak- ‘‘scheduled running time’’ to mean the the preceding month. responsible delays, host-responsible scheduled duration of a train’s travel on Paragraph (c)(1) of this section delays, and third party delays, for the a host railroad, as set forth in the provides that the certified schedule host railroad territory within each route. Amtrak schedule skeleton. This metric is the number of certified The train delays metric is reported by definition is new to the final rule and schedules, uncertified schedules, and delay code by: Total minutes of delay; supports the host running time metric. disputed schedules, reported by train, Amtrak-responsible delays; Amtrak’s This section defines the term by route, and by host railroad host-responsible delays; Amtrak’s host ‘‘schedule skeleton’’ to mean a schedule (excluding switching and terminal responsible delays and Amtrak- grid used by Amtrak and host railroads railroads), identified in a notice to the responsible delays, combined; non- to communicate the public schedule of Federal Railroad Administrator by Amtrak host-responsible delays; and an Amtrak train and the schedule of Amtrak monthly, for the first six months third party delays. The train delays operations of an Amtrak train on host following publication of the final rule, metric is also reported by the number of railroads. This definition is new to the and then annually on the anniversary of non-Amtrak host-responsible delay final rule and supports the host running the final rule’s publication on November minutes disputed by host railroad and time metric. 16, 2020. not resolved by Amtrak.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72989

Paragraph (e) of this section provides elderly passengers (e.g., at the boarding that customers who rate their overall that the train delays per 10,000 train station, on board the train, and at the satisfaction as 70 percent or greater are miles metric is the minutes of delay per destination station); and does not likely to travel on Amtrak again. In 10,000 train miles for all Amtrak- address ticket-purchase methods (e.g., addition, Amtrak reports it adheres to responsible and host-responsible delays, phone, in-person agent, or website). industry best practices and solicits for the host railroad territory within First, as discussed above, Amtrak may feedback from a random selection of each route. Paragraph (f) of this section change the customer satisfaction survey riders, with a sample size of survey provides that the station performance in the future. FRA understands that responses far greater than industry metric is the number of detraining Amtrak is evaluating these suggestions minimum standards. Lastly, FRA further passengers, the number of late and is committed to working with understands that Amtrak distributes passengers, and the average minutes late stakeholders to address these comments email surveys from a centralized that late customers arrive at their in future survey updates and/or by database to ensure that employees are detraining stations, reported by route, regularly providing related information unable to provide surveys to targeted by train, and by station. The average on accessibility for disabled and elderly customers. minutes late per late customer passengers that it collects already. A Amtrak adjusts overall satisfaction calculation excludes on-time customers commenter also stated that Amtrak score performance by removing that arrive within 15 minutes of their should offer additional contact methods passengers who arrive at their scheduled time. A customer who arrives for passengers to complete the customer destinations on State-supported and at their detraining station 16 minutes satisfaction survey, such as postal mail long-distance routes excessively late (30 late would be included in this and telephone. However, most minutes late for State-supported routes calculation and would be recorded as 16 Americans have access to the internet and 120 minutes for long-distance minutes late. and there would be a substantial routes) from the system-wide Paragraph (g) of this section provides additional cost to providing surveys by calculation. Typically, on these routes, that the host running time metric is the postal mail or telephone with a many of the major causes of passenger average actual running time and the corresponding limited benefit to the lateness are beyond Amtrak’s control. median actual running time compared statistical sample of respondents.35 By removing these customer responses with the scheduled running time A commenter stated that the survey from the calculations, most of the between the first and final reporting should directly ask whether the impact from these significantly late points for a host railroad set forth in the customer was satisfied with the train’s customers (whose responses may be Amtrak schedule skeleton, reported by on-time performance. The Amtrak CSI overly influenced by the train’s late route, by train, and by host railroad Survey, which FRA included in docket arrival) is removed. Both the (excluding switching and terminal number FRA–2019–0069–0004 for performance adjusted and non- railroads). reference, does have a question asking performance adjusted overall respondents to rate their satisfaction satisfaction scores will be reported Section 273.7 Customer Service with the reliability or on-time under this final rule to reflect the Paragraph (a) of this section provides performance of the train on which they responses of all Amtrak customers. that the customer satisfaction metric is traveled. A commenter stated that the A commenter stated that there should the percent of respondents to Amtrak’s survey should include questions about be a performance adjusted customer customer satisfaction survey who customer/passenger interactions with service metric and a separate non- provided a score of 70 percent or greater Amtrak customer relations to evaluate performance adjusted customer service for their ‘‘overall satisfaction’’ on a 100 this customer-facing service. FRA metric. FRA revised the final rule to point scale for their most recent trip, by understands that Amtrak is evaluating clearly state that the customer route, shown both adjusted for this suggestion. satisfaction metric will be shown both performance and unadjusted. Amtrak’s A commenter stated that a net adjusted for performance and not customer satisfaction survey is a market- promoter score or a median survey adjusted for performance. A commenter research survey that measures more response should be used instead of the stated that the customer satisfaction than fifty specific service attributes that customer satisfaction survey. As noted, metric should also be adjusted to show cover the entire customer journey. It Amtrak may change the customer customer satisfaction surveys in which should be noted that Amtrak can change satisfaction survey. With that said, FRA the excessive delays are Amtrak-related. the customer satisfaction survey, and considered several approaches to FRA does not believe this would such changes could in turn impact the measuring customer service, including provide useful information. The intent information reported for the customer the net promoter score, but determined of the customer satisfaction metric is to service metrics. However, in the event that the customer satisfaction survey understand the experience of customers Amtrak changes the survey, the new offers an accurate assessment of the and measure ‘‘overall satisfaction,’’ not survey would continue to seek customer experience. Specifically, the to determine the impacts of delay information in connection with the customer satisfaction metric measures responsibility. Information on minutes customer satisfaction metrics required the percentage of respondents who of delay by category, responsible party, in this final rule (a survey change would provided a score of 70 percent or greater route and host territory, including just modify how the survey solicits this for their overall satisfaction. The use of Amtrak-responsible delays, are reported information). FRA will publish 70 percent as the threshold is based on by other metrics in this final rule. information about Amtrak’s survey Amtrak’s analysis of the relationship A commenter stated that the (including the survey questions and between customer satisfaction and the definition of excessively late should be methodology) annually as an appendix likelihood of future travel. As reported changed to match the definition of late to the quarterly report. by Amtrak, the historical data suggests used in the customer OTP metric. Several commenters provided However, aligning these two definitions feedback on Amtrak’s customer 35 In 2016, the U.S. Census reported that eighty- would render the customer service satisfaction survey, including stating one percent of American households had a metric less meaningful by significantly broadband internet subscription. See https:// that the survey: Does not address www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/ decreasing the number of survey accessibility concerns for disabled or publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf. responses included in the performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72990 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

adjusted customer service score (on personnel on their most recent trip, by fixed costs. Avoidable operating costs some routes, more than 70 percent of route. are the sum of frequency and route current customers would be excluded). Paragraph (c) of this section provides variable costs. Frequency variable costs FRA determined reporting both that the information given metric is the are costs that vary based on short-term performance adjusted and non- average score from respondents to the decisions to adjust a route’s schedule or performance adjusted customer service Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for frequency, not as a result of long-term scores best provides a full and accurate their overall review of information decisions to add or eliminate a service view of customer satisfaction while also provided by Amtrak on their most permanently. Frequency variable costs accounting for the impact of poor recent trip, by route. typically occur directly and performance on customers’ scores. Paragraph (d) of this section provides immediately with the service change. Several commenters stated that there that the on-board comfort metric is the Frequency variable costs may include should be additional customer service average score from respondents to the train and engine crew labor, on-board metrics with quantitative measurements Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for service labor, fuel and power, not based on a survey score regarding: their overall review of on-board comfort commissary provisions, specific yard Mishandled bags; denied boardings; on their most recent trip, by route. operations, connecting motor coaches, consumer complaints; riders needing Paragraph (e) of this section provides and station staffing expenses. assistance; riders using mobility- that the on-board cleanliness metric is Route variable costs are costs that enhancing devices; and riders who paid the average score from respondents to vary based on long-term decisions to for their tickets in cash. As a the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey add or eliminate service and have a counterpoint, one commenter noted that for their overall review of on-board broader impact. Route variable costs including customer service metrics with cleanliness on their most recent trip, by typically require a separate management quantitative measurements may require route. action to achieve a change in cost. Route significant time and cost to build Paragraph (f) of this section provides variable costs may include car and specific monitoring systems. FRA agrees that the on-board food service metric is locomotive maintenance turnaround, that the cost to implement these metrics the average score from respondents to on-board passenger technology, is unduly burdensome in cases where the Amtrak customer satisfaction survey commissary operations, direct Amtrak does not already collect the for their review of on-board food service advertising, specific reservations and data. In addition, FRA did not include on their most recent trip, by route. call centers costs, station facility a mishandled bags metric in the final Section 273.9 Financial operations, station technology, rule because, unlike air and bus travel, maintenance of way, block and tower Amtrak reported that the majority of Paragraph (a) of this section provides operations, regional/local police, and intercity rail passengers handle their that the cost recovery metric is Amtrak’s insurance expenses. These costs do not own bags. FRA believes the additional adjusted operating revenue divided by vary with individual train frequencies cost to collect this information is not Amtrak’s adjusted operating expense. but may vary if service is increased or warranted as Amtrak does not already This metric is reported at the corporate reduced on a larger scale. For example, collect the data on a routine basis. FRA level/system-wide and for each route costs for food and beverages stocked on did not include a denied boardings and is reported in constant dollars of the a train would be avoidable if a single metric because the final rule’s missed reporting year based on the Office of train were cancelled, but the connections metric offers a broader Management and Budget’s gross commissary supporting the route would measurement of customers who do not domestic product chain deflator. continue operations if other trains travel on their originally ticketed A commenter stated that the remained. Route variable costs attempt itinerary. FRA did not include a definition of the cost recovery metric to capture the potential costs that would consumer complaints metric in the final presumes that Amtrak is responsible for vary if the entire route were suspended rule because the customer satisfaction all operating expenses over State- or eliminated and the commissary survey offers a more comprehensive supported routes, which does not supporting it no longer operated. Over quantitative measurement of customer accurately represent the cost of service time, or with a large enough expansion satisfaction for the overall trip, as well delivery routes where States cover the or reduction in service, the shared costs as specific attributes of the experience, cost of some of the component services. would be expected to change. as compared to the number of FRA acknowledges that some States System/fixed costs are not likely to complaints received. FRA did not have separate arrangements to pay for vary with smaller service changes and include metrics about riders needing operating expenses that are not reflected would not change if a single route were assistance, riders using mobility- in Amtrak’s adjusted operating added or eliminated. System/fixed costs enhancing devices, and riders who paid expenses. Section 273.3 of the final rule may include marketing and distribution, for their tickets in cash because, while includes a revised definition of the term national police, environmental and these metrics may provide information ‘‘adjusted operating expenses’’ to clarify safety, and general and administrative about the customers Amtrak serves, that the cost recovery metric does not expenses. these metrics do not measure the quality include operating expenses for State- Adding frequency variable and route of service provided. supported routes paid for separately by variable costs to calculate avoidable Finally, a commenter stated that all States. operating costs does not make any customer service metrics should be Paragraph (b) of this section provides distinction between short- and long- reported on a quarterly basis. FRA that the avoidable operating costs term avoidable costs, but results in a agrees and the final rule establishes covered by passenger revenue metric is single avoidable cost figure for a single quarterly reporting of all customer the percent of avoidable operating costs route at a future time. This approach service metrics. divided by passenger revenue for each represents a maximum saving, or cost Paragraph (b) of this section provides route, shown with and without State avoided, and may be lower depending that the Amtrak personnel metric is the operating payments. Each route’s on the specific context of each average score from respondents to the operating costs can be separated into individual route. The results of this Amtrak customer satisfaction survey for three components: Frequency variable approach are limited to the costs their overall review of Amtrak costs, route variable costs, and system/ avoided if a single service is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72991

permanently eliminated. If multiple and fully allocated operating costs number of passengers on Amtrak trains, routes are eliminated, it is likely that covered by passenger revenues on each reported by route. some fixed costs will also decrease. route . . . .’’ The statute does not The definitions of terms in section Corporate-wide costs such as general specify the time horizon of the metric or 273.9 are only intended to apply to this and administrative expenses may shrink differentiate between short-term and final rule and the Amtrak financial to reflect the size of the smaller long-term avoidable costs. The reporting herein. business. In the event an actual commenter also asserted that the Section 273.11 Public Benefits elimination in service is contemplated, proposed definition of avoidable costs a detailed planning analysis would be includes some costs that may not be Paragraph (a) of this section provides required, considering the location of the fully avoidable for a single route that the connectivity metric is the route and the facilities that serve it, to because they are shared among multiple percent of passengers connecting to and determine the cost impacts. routes. Although some costs are shared, from other Amtrak routes, updated on The metric reflects avoidable FRA believes that these costs are an annual basis. The metric reports operating costs as a percentage of avoidable, as over time they will scale passengers making connections between passenger revenue, which, when shown to the size of the service provided. The the Northeast Corridor, State-supported, at the route level, provides information commenter also proposed definitions of and long distances routes, or any about cost recovery, or the ability of the long-term avoidable costs and long-term combination thereof. Under this metric, route to cover avoidable operating costs average infrastructure costs that equate a connection means a passenger arriving with revenue generated. States or other them with above-the-rail costs and on one train and connecting to a sponsoring entities also provide below-the-rail costs, respectively. departing train within 23 hours. Section operating payments to Amtrak to However, these proposed definitions do 207 of PRIIA specifies that the metrics provide service for trains on State- not align with the way Amtrak is shall include ‘‘measures of connectivity supported routes, which is classified as organized as a business or the way that with other routes in all regions currently passenger revenue. To understand better it allocates costs across its service lines receiving Amtrak service’’ for long the impact of these State payments, the and routes. In addition, the commenter distance routes. The connectivity metric metric avoidable operating costs proposed that the long-term avoidable provides connectivity information for covered by passenger revenue is cost definition include off-book the entire Amtrak network, including by calculated in two ways: First, as a equipment interest and depreciation route for long distance routes. One percent dividing avoidable operating expenses, but as equipment is shared commenter expressed support for the costs by passenger revenue, and second, across Amtrak’s network, these costs connectivity metric, stating that it as a percent dividing avoidable likely are not avoidable because would give States more granular data operating costs by passenger revenue equipment may be used on other routes. with which to adjust schedules and without State operating payments. Paragraph (c) of this section provides build more regional-scale service. One commenter stated general that the fully allocated core operating Paragraph (b) of this section provides support for segregating State operating costs covered by the passenger revenue that the missed connections metric is payments from passenger revenue for metric is the percent of fully allocated the percent of passengers connecting to/ this metric (and for the fully allocated core operating costs divided by from other Amtrak routes who missed core operating costs covered by the passenger revenue for each route, shown connections due to a late arrival from passenger revenue metric). Another with and without State operating another Amtrak train, reported by route commenter stated that the avoidable payments. Fully allocated core and updated on an annual basis. A operating costs and the fully allocated operating costs include the fully-loaded missed connection, particularly in a core operating costs covered by the share of overhead-type costs that pertain location with only one daily train, can passenger revenue metric should be to more than one route or to the result in a significant impact to the reported by the specific sub-categories company as a whole. Costs are limited customer. A commenter stated that FRA listed in the definition of passenger to ‘‘core’’ expenses (i.e., related to the should revise the missed connections revenue. FRA disagrees. The final rule provision of intercity passenger trains) metric to include the financial impact of establishes metrics that report passenger to match expenses with passenger missed connections and to report the revenue as a percent of avoidable costs revenue. Several commenters stated results more frequently than once per and, separately, as a percent of fully general support for this metric, year. FRA does not have the economic allocated costs per route. Consistent especially when reported alongside the data to quantify the total financial with section 207, these metrics do not avoidable operating costs covered by the impact of missed connections, and show the actual amount of revenue passenger revenue metric. acquiring such data and methodologies generated, but rather set forth a ratio of Paragraph (d) of this section provides would be challenging and burdensome, revenue to cost. In addition, the purpose that the average ridership metric is the as FRA does not believe these data are of representing passenger revenue with number of passenger-miles divided by readily available. and without State operating payments is train-miles for each route. This metric Paragraph (c) of this section provides to understand better the impact of State measures the average number of that the community access metric is the payments on route financial passengers on each of the route’s trains. percent of Amtrak passenger-trips to performance. One commenter proposed that FRA also and from not well-served communities, A commenter stated that the proposed report an additional ridership metric to updated on an annual basis. While one avoidable cost metric is deficient and reflect total passengers by route commenter expressed general support that the final rule should instead alongside the passenger-miles per train- for this metric, another commenter include a short-term avoidable cost miles metric for convenience in stated that the community access metric metric, a long-term avoidable cost comparing ridership data in FRA’s does not adequately measure metric, and a long-term average quarterly report. FRA agrees, and the transportation needs because it does not infrastructure cost metric. FRA believes final rule includes such an additional identify communities that do not have the avoidable cost metric is appropriate. metric in paragraph (e). access to intercity passenger rail or Section 207 requires a metric that Paragraph (e) of this section provides airports, nor does it address the measures ‘‘the percentage of avoidable that the total ridership metric is the total convenience of train arrival times at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72992 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

rural stations. However, section 207(a) assumptions. Finally, these metrics paragraphs (a) through (d) should be requires ‘‘measures of . . . the would impose a significant burden on reported by route and updated transportation needs of communities FRA to identify the appropriate data, quarterly, on a rolling previous 12- and populations that are not well-served obtain and track the detailed economic month basis. FRA recognizes the value by other forms of intercity data, as well as to develop modeling of providing data more frequently to transportation.’’ The final rule’s capabilities. measure performance and to identify definition of not well-served A commenter stated that there should trends; however, the metrics listed in communities identifies rural be an overlapping corridors metric to paragraphs (a) through (d) require communities that are not well-served by measure the number and economic significant effort to compile and other intercity transportation modes (air value of passenger trips dependent upon calculate, and as such, the final rule and bus), but that do have regularly intermediate connections on long- provides that these metrics will be scheduled intercity passenger rail distance corridors. The commenter updated annually. service, using distance from airports or stated that the data for this metric could station stops as a proxy for access. FRA be gathered using the commenter’s VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices recognizes the importance of proposed economic and station A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. understanding how to improve intercity development metric, with underlying 13771, and DOT Regulatory Policies and passenger rail service to these community economic data updated Procedures communities, and views the current annually, as well as the connections This final rule is a significant metric as an initial step in identifying data from the final rule’s missed regulatory action within the meaning of the communities and analyzing their connections metric. FRA declines to include this metric in the final rule. The Executive Order 12866 and DOT current use of Amtrak service. In 36 addition, Amtrak is required to consider missed connections metric is the regulatory policies and procedures. the transportation needs of not well- percent of passengers connecting to/ Although the economic effects of this served communities in their route and from other Amtrak routes who missed regulatory action would not exceed the service planning decisions. Fixing connections due to a late arrival from $100 million annual threshold defined America’s Surface Transportation Act, another Amtrak train, reported by route by Executive Order 12866, the rule is Public Law 114–94, 11206 (2015); 49 and updated on an annual basis. The significant because of the substantial U.S.C. 24101, note. reported data from the missed public interest in this rulemaking. Paragraph (d) of this section provides connections metric would not Pursuant to the Congressional Review that the service availability metric is the comprehensively identify intermediate Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of total number of daily Amtrak trains per connections on long-distance corridors. Information and Regulatory Affairs 100,000 residents in a metropolitan FRA selected metrics to measure the designated this rule as not a ’major rule’, statistical area (MSA) for each of the top public benefit of intercity rail across all as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 100 MSAs in the United States, shown services and routes for the entire nation; Additionally, this final rule is in total and adjusted for time of day, this commenter’s proposed metric considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory updated on an annual basis. Many would focus exclusively on long- action. FRA has provided an assessment MSAs are served regularly by Amtrak distance routes. In addition, and as of the costs and cost savings expected to trains, but during inconvenient travel noted above, the proposed economic result from implementation of this final times. The metric, as adjusted for time and station development metric would rule. of day, shows only those trains that impose a significant burden on FRA to The Metrics and Standards measure arrive or depart between 5:00 a.m. and identify the appropriate data, obtain and the performance and service quality of 11:00 p.m. track the detailed economic data, as intercity passenger train operations as A commenter stated that there should well as to develop modeling required by section 207 of PRIIA. The be two economic and station capabilities. Metrics and Standards are generally development metrics to measure the A commenter stated that there should organized into four categories: On-time annual total economic value to be a normalized route performance performance and train delays, customer communities served by the intercity metric, reported quarterly, which would service, financial, and public benefits. passenger rail service, accounting for measure route performance for all routes Other than the OTP and train delays factors such as labor, value-added on a per-passenger-mile basis and on a metrics, the Metrics and Standards in benefits, and increased tax revenue, and passengers-per-departure from each this final rule will not pose an to report that value as a ratio to the originating station basis. FRA declines additional burden on Amtrak or host investment made in a route. The to include this metric in the final rule railroads. Data such as customer commenter also stated that these metrics and believes presenting the route-level satisfaction and financial information should be based on an economic model information without any normalization are currently collected by Amtrak and developed by the Rail Passengers is the most straight-forward method. submitted to FRA on a quarterly basis. Association for such a purpose. FRA The final rule does include a route-level Other data, such as train delays and on- declines to include these metrics in this ridership metric (the number of time performance, are already shared final rule. The final rule addresses passenger miles divided by train-miles), between Amtrak, host railroads, and service quality metrics that measure the which is consistent with section 207. State partners under their various actual provision of rail service. Parties seeking additional information agreements, and the parties have Although important, economic and about Amtrak’s operating statistics may established protocols for data collection, station development metrics are also view Amtrak’s monthly distribution, and reconciliation. While indirectly related to intercity passenger performance report, which includes seat the final rule establishes a new data- rail service. In addition, measures of miles and passenger miles by route. sharing requirement to assist with economic and development activity Several commenters expressed calculating the customer OTP metric often require detailed information on general support for metrics that would (specifically, ridership data), this local market conditions, and as such, measure the public benefit of passenger information is already collected by are not well-suited for national metrics rail service. One commenter stated that and may rely too heavily on general the public benefits metrics listed in 36 See 5 CFR part 5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72993

Amtrak. FRA expects that Amtrak will specifically, Congress has accounted for meetings. Additionally, FRA has develop additional procedures for such impacts by providing that STB’s substantially increased the estimated sharing the data, but once established, enforcement of the preference time spent on preparations for those this data sharing will not burden requirement not ‘‘materially lessen the meetings. Amtrak’s routine operations. Lastly, as a quality of freight transportation For purposes of this analysis, FRA result of the final rule’s customer OTP provided to shippers.’’ 49 U.S.C. assumed that Amtrak and each of the metric and certified schedule metric, 24308(c). host railroads will meet five times Amtrak and host railroads may adjust With respect to operating agreement during the first year to discuss revising Amtrak’s published train schedules to payments, as noted previously, FRA is Amtrak’s published train schedules. align them with the customer OTP not a party to these agreements, nor Amtrak currently has agreements with metric. As part of that effort, Amtrak does FRA have knowledge of their 31 host railroads. However, eight of and host railroads may meet to discuss details. More importantly, this final rule these railroads are switching and and agree upon schedule modifications does not require a change to the terminal railroads that will not likely be to the published train schedules. performance payment provisions in involved in revising schedules, as FRA received several comments these operating agreements; Amtrak and Amtrak only operates over those addressing the NPRM’s cost estimates. A the host railroads may continue to railroads for short distances with very commenter stated that the NPRM did maintain those provisions as they see few, if any, stops. If there were not consider the impacts on commerce fit. In addition, to the extent a host discussions between Amtrak and any and a host railroad’s operations and railroad is concerned with receiving switching and terminal railroads, then it network fluidity. A commenter stated lower performance payments as a result would be expected to occur during that a customer OTP metric enlarges an of this final rule, this final rule likewise regularly scheduled meetings and Amtrak train’s dispatch footprint (i.e., it does not prohibit a host railroad and would not add any additional burden. would cause the Amtrak train to take up Amtrak from revising the performance For the other 23 host railroads, additional capacity on the rail line) by payments to align better with the schedule discussions will add time to redistributing recovery time across customer OTP metric and standard. In the current regular meetings held with intermediate stations, which threatens fact, section 207(c) provides that, to the Amtrak. FRA estimates that such overall network fluidity, among other extent practicable, Amtrak and its host schedule alignment discussions will things. A commenter also stated that rail carriers shall incorporate the require 40 hours of additional meeting FRA did not consider payments made metrics and standards into their time between Amtrak and each host under the Amtrak-host railroad operating agreements. Also, railroad. FRA estimates that Amtrak and operating agreement (stating that the performance payments, even if they the host railroad will each have host railroad would receive less change as a result of the final rule, approximately three to six employees at performance payments under the would not change the estimate of costs the meetings. The following table shows existing operating agreement). due to the rule. Such payments the total cost of additional meetings With respect to operational impacts, represent transfers rather than economic between Amtrak and host railroads. as discussed above, delays waiting for costs or benefits. Wage rates for this analysis are from the time at intermediate stations can be One Class I host railroad stated that Surface Transportation Board.37 Over foreclosed by an accurate schedule, and the NPRM’s costs are too low and their the course of the first year, the total cost adjusting train schedules to align with railroad alone would require more than of all additional meetings is estimated to the customer OTP metric does not mean 10 hours of meetings to discuss be $473,473. that recovery time will be added for schedule revisions. Another commenter each station. In the case of capacity stated that the NPRM substantially 37 2019 STB wage rates: Group #100 (Executives, impacts great enough to warrant underestimates the cost of attempting to Officials, & Staff Assistants) Wage Rate: $68.81 or schedule change, reductions of time to negotiate schedule adjustments. Based $120.42 with a 75% burden factor. Group #200 (Professional & Administrative) Wage Rate: $44.27 remove these waits would be in both on both comments, FRA has increased or $77.47 with a 75% burden factor. Group #500 parties’ interests. In addition, with the estimate of meeting time and (Transportation (Other than Train & Engine)) Wage respect to impacts on commerce number of employees present at those Rate: $40.27 or $70.47 with a 75% burden factor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 72994 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Further, to prepare for these meetings, determine how train schedules should Class I host railroads, based largely on Amtrak and the 23 host railroads will be adjusted. the greater amount of route miles need to perform the necessary The cost for host railroads preparing hosted. The following table shows the groundwork, such as historical data for meetings will vary depending on the estimated costs of preparing for analysis of schedules and train complexity of the route. FRA estimates meetings. Amtrak and host railroads performance, as well as analysis of that Class I host railroads will have will spend $296,991 over the first year current and future operations, to more extensive discussions than non- to prepare for meetings.

In addition, this final rule requires Congress and other Federal Agencies, in well as briefings with the chief Amtrak and a host railroad to transmit the event a published train schedule is executive officers. Each letter is a monthly joint letter and status report, not certified or disputed by May 17, estimated to require $656 in labor on signed by their respective chief 2021. Preparing a letter will require staff Amtrak’s part and $1,022 on the host executive officers, to certain members of time by Amtrak and a host railroad, as railroad’s part. FRA estimates that five

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.012 ER16NO20.013 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72995

routes will be uncertified in the first cost of the monthly letters. The total railroads for the monthly letters will be year; each of which will require six estimated cost to Amtrak and host $50,328. letters. The following table shows the

Due to this final rule, some railroads routes will be the subject of such a non- the arbitrators. The arbitration fees will likely initiate a non-binding binding dispute resolution process. The include administrative fees,38 arbitrator dispute resolution process to resolve total cost of such a non-binding dispute travel fees, and the rental fee for the scheduling disputes. Based on an resolution process per route is hearing room. The table below shows analysis by FRA subject matter experts, approximately $52,200, and includes the estimated costs for arbitration fees. FRA estimates that approximately eight arbitration fees and compensation for

The compensation paid to the attend the hearing, and review the below shows the costs for arbitrator arbitrator includes time spent by each hearing after completion. The table compensation. arbitrator to prepare for the hearing,

38 Source: American Arbitration Association. See Schedule at https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/ ‘‘Undetermined Monetary Claims’’ Standard Fee Commercial_Arbitration_Fee_Schedule_1.pdf

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.014 ER16NO20.015 72996 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

The cost paid to the arbitrator for their routes will be $417,600, which includes connection with the non-binding fees would likely be split between arbitrator fees and compensation. dispute resolution process; briefing Amtrak and the host railroad. The total In addition to the cost of the non- within their organization; and attending estimated cost paid for the non-binding binding dispute resolution process, the hearing. The table below shows the dispute resolution process for all eight Amtrak and a host railroad will need to total cost of staff time for Amtrak and spend time: Preparing documents in host railroads.

FRA assumes that employees from the some travel costs associated with the expected cost of travel related to the host railroads and Amtrak will incur hearing. The table below shows the hearing.

The table below shows all estimated fees, arbitrator compensation, and compensation and travel costs. The total arbitration costs, including: Arbitration Amtrak and the host railroad’s staff cost of arbitration will be $714,030.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.016 ER16NO20.017 ER16NO20.018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72997

This final rule also requires Amtrak to in place for sharing of data, it will it in a usable format. The following table share ridership data with each host require additional time from an Amtrak shows the estimated cost to prepare the railroad. Although systems are already employee to process the data and share ridership reports.

All costs of this final rule are conditions regarding a certified table shows the total 10-year estimated expected to be incurred during the first schedule may change. The following costs of this final rule. year, though FRA acknowledges that

This final rule may result in lower inability to quantify the potential B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and operational costs for Amtrak, to the synergistic effects that improved OTP Executive Order 13272 extent it results in improved OTP, reliability could have across Amtrak’s which may reduce labor costs, fuel network, FRA has not quantified any The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 costs, and expenses related to passenger potential benefits from lower (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and inconvenience, and provide benefits to operational costs or improved service Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, riders from improved travel times and that may result from the final rule. FRA Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of service quality. A commenter stated that expects Amtrak and host railroads to proposed and final rules to assess their improved OTP should have a significant structure schedules to achieve impacts on small entities. When an effect on ridership, and would make a performance that meets this rule’s OTP agency issues a rulemaking proposal, significant improvement on operational standard, thus avoiding the expense and the RFA requires the agency to ‘‘prepare costs. Due to the difficulty in precisely uncertainty of an STB investigation and make available for public comment quantifying future benefits to rail routes under section 213. an initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’ from improved OTP, combined with the which will ‘‘describe the impact of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER16NO20.019 ER16NO20.020 ER16NO20.021 72998 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5 not be significant. This final rule does development of regulatory policies that U.S.C. 603(a)). not require published train schedule have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies Section 605 of the RFA allows an modifications. However, FRA assumes that have federalism implications’’ are agency to certify a rule, in lieu of that, as a result of the Metrics and defined in the Executive Order to preparing an analysis, if the proposed Standards, Amtrak will engage with include regulations that have rulemaking is not expected to have a many host railroads to discuss ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, significant economic impact on a modifications to the published train on the relationship between the national substantial number of small entities. schedule to align the schedules with the government and the States, or on the Out of an abundance of caution, FRA customer OTP metric. distribution of power and prepared an initial regulatory flexibility There are currently twelve host responsibilities among the various analysis to accompany the NPRM, railroads that are small entities, levels of government.’’ Under Executive which noted no expected significant including approximately eight Order 13132, the agency may not issue economic impact on a substantial switching and terminal railroads and a regulation with federalism number of small entities. FRA is now four short line and regional railroads. implications that imposes substantial certifying that this final rule will not The impact on those small entities are direct compliance costs and that is not have a significant economic impact on very minimal. The switching and required by statute, unless the Federal a substantial number of small entities. terminal railroads are not likely Government provides the funds Description of Small Entities Impacted burdened by this final rule because necessary to pay the direct compliance by the Final Rule Amtrak only operates over those routes costs incurred by State and local for short distances and has very few governments, or the agency consults In consultation with the SBA, FRA stops along those sections of track. with State and local government has published a final statement of Those railroads already meet with officials early in the process of agency policy that formally establishes Amtrak on a periodic basis, so any developing the regulation. Where a ‘‘small entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ discussions regarding their schedule regulation has federalism implications as railroads, contractors, and hazardous will take place at that time. It is likely and preempts State law, the agency materials shippers that meet the revenue that no schedule adjustments are seeks to consult with State and local requirements of a Class III railroad as set required along those routes. officials in the process of developing the forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is $20 Amtrak has limited stops along the regulation. million or less in inflation-adjusted routes of the four short line and regional FRA has analyzed this final rule annual revenues, and commuter railroads; therefore, published train under the principles and criteria railroads or small governmental schedule adjustments would be brief. contained in Executive Order 13132. jurisdictions that serve populations of Those railroads also already meet with This final rule could affect State and 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (, Amtrak on a periodic basis and local governments to the extent that 2003) (codified at appendix C to 49 CFR discussions regarding schedules can they sponsor, or exercise oversight of, part 209). FRA is using this definition take place at that time. Such discussions intercity passenger rail service. Because for the final rule. may add a minimal amount of time to this final rule is required by Federal This final rule impacts Amtrak and those meetings. However, published statute, the consultation and funding Amtrak’s host railroads. This rule train schedule adjustments may not requirements of Executive Order 13132 establishes a customer OTP metric and even be necessary for these railroads. do not apply. a certified schedule metric, which will Other than the customer OTP metric, In sum, FRA has analyzed this final likely result in modifications to some of the final rule does not provide an rule under the principles and criteria in Amtrak’s published train schedules. additional burden on Amtrak or the host Executive Order 13132. As explained Amtrak is not a small entity and the railroads. Amtrak already collects the above, FRA has determined this final majority of the host railroads are Class data to support these new metrics; rule has no federalism implications. I railroads or State Departments of therefore, there is no additional burden. Therefore, preparation of a federalism Transportation, none of which are small summary impact statement for this final entities. There are currently 12 host Certification rule is not required. railroads that are small entities, Consistent with the findings in FRA’s E. Environmental Impact including approximately 8 switching initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the and terminal railroads and 4 short line FRA Administrator hereby certifies that FRA has evaluated this final rule 39 or regional railroads. There are this final rule will not have a significant consistent with the National approximately 695 class III railroads on economic impact on a substantial Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 the general system. Therefore, the 12 number of small entities. U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other small entities potentially affected by environmental statutes, related this final rule are not considered a C. Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory requirements, and its NEPA substantial number of small entities. FRA is publishing a new information implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771. Under NEPA, categorical Economic Impact on Small Entities collection request in connection with this final rule in a separate notice. For exclusions (CEs) are actions identified FRA has determined that the information or a copy of the paperwork in an agency’s NEPA implementing economic impact on small entities will package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. regulations that do not normally have a Kim Toone, at 202–493–6132, or significant impact on the environment 39 FRA received one comment from a Class III [email protected]. and therefore do not require either an terminal railroad operating on track controlled by environmental assessment (EA) or another railroad, expressing concern about being D. Federalism Implications the subject of an STB investigation. However, it is environmental impact statement (EIS). FRA’s understanding that Amtrak does not Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ See 40 CFR 1508.4. FRA has determined currently operate over the right-of-way in question (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires that this final rule is categorically (and although the possibility of future Amtrak service may exist, such future service would be FRA to develop an accountable process excluded from detailed environmental subject to the certified schedule metric in this final to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input review pursuant to 23 CFR rule). by State and local officials in the 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of rules,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 72999

the issuance of policy statements, the activities on minority populations and I. Energy Impact waiver or modification of existing low-income populations. The DOT Executive Order 13211 requires regulatory requirements, or Order instructs DOT agencies to address Federal agencies to prepare a Statement discretionary approvals that do not compliance with Executive Order 12898 of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant result in significantly increased and requirements within the DOT Order energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (, emissions of air or water pollutants or in rulemaking activities, as appropriate. 2001). Under the Executive Order, a noise.’’ FRA has evaluated this final rule under ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as In analyzing the applicability of a CE, Executive Order 12898 and the DOT any action by an agency (normally FRA must also consider whether Order and has determined it would not published in the Federal Register) that unusual circumstances are present that cause disproportionately high and promulgates or is expected to lead to the would warrant a more detailed adverse human health and promulgation of a final rule or environmental review through the environmental effects on minority regulation, including notices of inquiry, preparation of an EA or EIS. See 23 CFR populations or low-income populations. advance notices of proposed 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no unusual circumstances exist with G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal rulemaking, and notices of proposed respect to this regulation that would Consultation) rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order trigger the need for a more detailed FRA has evaluated this final rule environmental review. The purpose of 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is under the principles and criteria in likely to have a significant adverse effect this rulemaking is to establish metrics Executive Order 13175, Consultation and standards to measure the on the supply, distribution, or use of and Coordination with Indian Tribal energy; or (2) that is designated by the performance and service quality of Governments, dated , 2000. intercity passenger train operations. Administrator of the Office of The final rule will not have a substantial Information and Regulatory Affairs as a FRA does not anticipate any direct effect on one or more Indian environmental impacts from this final significant energy action. FRA has tribes, will not impose substantial direct evaluated this final rule in accordance rule and finds there are no unusual compliance costs on Indian tribal circumstances present in connection with Executive Order 13211. FRA has governments, and will not preempt determined that this rule is not likely to with this final rule. tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and A commenter stated that FRA should have a significant adverse effect on the consultation requirements of Executive consider whether the rulemaking meets supply, distribution, or use of energy. Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal the requirements of a categorical Consequently, FRA has determined that summary impact statement is not exclusion under NEPA given the this final rule is not a ‘‘significant required. operational impacts on the host energy action’’ within the meaning of railroads. As discussed elsewhere in H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Executive Order 13211. this final rule, any such operational 1995 Executive Order 13783, ‘‘Promoting impacts relate to, and should be Energy Independence and Economic resolved by, the development of new Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Growth,’’ requires Federal agencies to schedules. FRA expects Amtrak and the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. review regulations to determine whether host railroads to account for these issues 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal they potentially burden the when they develop new schedules. agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise development or use of domestically Therefore, FRA finds that a categorical prohibited by law, assess the effects of produced energy resources, with exclusion is appropriate here. Federal regulatory actions on State, attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and Pursuant to Section 106 of the local, and tribal governments, and the nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 National Historic Preservation Act and private sector (other than to the extent (, 2017). Executive Order its implementing regulations, FRA has that such regulations incorporate 13783 defines ‘‘burden’’ to mean determined this undertaking has no requirements specifically set forth in unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or potential to affect historic properties. law).’’ Section 202 of the Unfunded otherwise impose significant costs on See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) the siting, permitting, production, determined that this rulemaking does further requires that before utilization, transmission, or delivery of not approve a project resulting in a use promulgating any general notice of energy resources. FRA has determined of a resource protected by Section 4(f). proposed rulemaking that is likely to this final rule will not potentially See Department of Transportation Act result in the promulgation of any rule burden the development or use of of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 that includes any Federal mandate that domestically produced energy Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. may result in expenditure by State, resources. local, and tribal governments, in the F. Executive Order 12898 aggregate, or by the private sector, of J. Trade Impact (Environmental Justice) $100,000,000 or more (adjusted The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 Executive Order 12898, Federal annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and (Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) Actions to Address Environmental before promulgating any final rule for prohibits Federal agencies from Justice in Minority Populations and which a general notice of proposed engaging in any standards setting or Low-Income Populations, and DOT rulemaking was published, the agency related activities that create unnecessary Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 , shall prepare a written statement obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 2012) require DOT agencies to achieve detailing the effect on State, local, and United States. Legitimate domestic environmental justice as part of their tribal governments and the private objectives, such as safety, are not mission by identifying and addressing, sector. This final rule will not result in considered unnecessary obstacles. The as appropriate, disproportionately high the expenditure, in the aggregate, of statute also requires consideration of and adverse human health or $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted international standards and, where environmental effects, including annually for inflation) in any one year, appropriate, that they be the basis for interrelated social and economic effects, and thus preparation of such a U.S. standards. FRA has assessed the of their programs, policies, and statement is not required. potential effect of this final rule on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 73000 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

foreign commerce and believes that its Amtrak’s customer satisfaction survey Host railroad means a railroad that is requirements are consistent with the means a market-research survey that directly accountable to Amtrak by Trade Agreements Act of 1979. measures Amtrak’s satisfaction score as agreement for Amtrak operations over a measured by specific service attributes railroad line segment. Amtrak is a host List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 273 that cover the entire customer journey. railroad of Amtrak trains and other Railroads, Transportation. Amtrak-responsible delays means trains operating over an Amtrak owned delays recorded by Amtrak, in The Rule or controlled railroad line segment. For accordance with Amtrak procedures, as purposes of the certified schedule ■ For the reasons discussed in the Amtrak-responsible delays, including metric under § 273.5(c), Amtrak is not a preamble, FRA amends chapter II, passenger-related delays at stations, host railroad. subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Amtrak equipment failures, holding for Host-responsible delays means delays Regulations, by adding part 273 to read connections, injuries, initial terminal recorded by Amtrak, in accordance with as follows: delays, servicing delays, crew and Amtrak procedures, as host-responsible system delays, and other miscellaneous delays, including freight train PART 273—METRICS AND MINIMUM Amtrak-responsible delays. interference, slow orders, signals, STANDARDS FOR INTERCITY Avoidable operating costs means costs routing, maintenance of way, commuter PASSENGER TRAIN OPERATIONS incurred by Amtrak to operate train train interference, passenger train service along a route that would no interference, catenary or wayside power Sec. longer be incurred if the route were no system failure, and detours. 273.1 Purpose. Not well-served communities means 273.3 Definitions. longer operated. 273.5 On-time performance and train Certified schedule means a published those rural communities: Within 25 delays. train schedule that Amtrak and the host miles of an intercity passenger rail 273.7 Customer service. railroad jointly certify is aligned with station; more than 75 miles from a large 273.9 Financial. the customer on-time performance airport; and more than 25 miles from 273.11 Public benefits. metric and standard in § 273.5(a)(1) and any other airport with scheduled Authority: Sec. 207, Div. B, Pub. L. 110– (2). If a published train schedule is commercial service or an intercity bus 432; 49 U.S.C. 24101, note; 49 U.S.C. 103(j); reported as a certified schedule under stop. 49 CFR 1.81; 49 CFR 1.88; and 49 CFR 1.89. § 273.5(c)(1), then it cannot later be Passenger revenue means intercity designated as an uncertified schedule. passenger rail revenue generated from § 273.1 Purpose. Disputed schedule means: passenger train operations, including The purpose of this part is to establish (1) A published train schedule for ticket revenue, food and beverage sales, metrics and minimum standards for which a specific change is sought: operating payments collected from measuring the performance and service (i) That is the only subject of a non- States or other sponsoring entities, quality of intercity passenger train binding dispute resolution process led special trains, and private car operations. by a neutral third-party and involving operations. Amtrak and one or more host railroads; Ridership data means, in a machine- § 273.3 Definitions. (ii) That is the only subject of a non- readable format: The total number of As used in this part— binding dispute resolution process led passengers, by train and by day; the Actual running time means the actual by a neutral third-party that has been station-specific number of detraining elapsed travel time of a train’s travel on initiated by one or more host railroads passengers, reported by host railroad a host railroad, between the departure and Amtrak has not consented to whose railroad right-of-way serves the time at the first reporting point for a participate in the process within 30 station, by train, and by day; and the host railroad segment and the arrival calendar days; or station-specific number of on-time time at the reporting point at the end of (iii) That is the only subject of a non- passengers reported by host railroad the host railroad segment. binding dispute resolution process led whose railroad right-of-way serves the Adjusted operating expenses means by a neutral third-party that has been station, by train, and by day. Amtrak’s operating expenses adjusted to initiated by Amtrak and the host Scheduled running time means the exclude certain Amtrak expenses that railroad has not consented to participate scheduled duration of a train’s travel on are not considered core to operating the in the process within 30 calendar days. a host railroad, as set forth in the business. The major exclusions are (2) The written decision resulting Amtrak schedule skeleton. depreciation, capital project related from a non-binding dispute resolution Schedule skeleton means a schedule expenditures not eligible for process is admissible in Surface grid used by Amtrak and host railroads capitalization, non-cash portion of Transportation Board investigations to communicate the public schedule of pension and post-retirement benefits, under 49 U.S.C. 24308(f). If a published an Amtrak train and the schedule of and Amtrak’s Office of Inspector train schedule is reported as a disputed operations of an Amtrak train on host General expenses. Adjusted operating schedule under § 273.5(c)(1), then it railroads. expenses do not include any operating remains a disputed schedule until Third party delays means delays expenses for State-supported routes that reported as a certified schedule. recorded by Amtrak, in accordance with are paid for separately by States. Fully allocated core operating costs Amtrak procedures, as third party Adjusted operating revenue means means Amtrak’s total costs associated delays, including bridge strikes, debris Amtrak’s operating revenue adjusted to with operating an Amtrak route, strikes, customs, drawbridge openings, exclude certain revenue that is including direct operating expenses, a police-related delays, trespassers, associated with capital projects. The portion of shared expenses, and a vehicle strikes, utility company delays, major exclusions are the amortization of portion of corporate overhead expenses. weather-related delays (including heat State capital payments and capital Fully allocated core operating costs or cold orders, storms, floods/washouts, project revenue related to expenses not exclude ancillary and other expenses earthquake-related delays, slippery rail eligible for capitalization. that are not directly reimbursed by due to leaves, flash-flood warnings, Amtrak means the National Railroad passenger revenue to match revenues wayside defect detector actuations Passenger Corporation. with expenses. caused by ice, and high-wind

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 73001

restrictions), acts of God, or waiting for host railroad must transmit a joint letter miles metric is the minutes of delay per scheduled departure time. and status report on the first of each 10,000 train miles for all Amtrak- Uncertified schedule means a month following the report, signed by responsible and host-responsible delays, published train schedule that has not their respective chief executive officers for the host railroad territory within been reported as a certified schedule or to each U.S. Senator and U.S. each route. a disputed schedule under § 273.5(c)(1). Representative whose district is served (f) Station performance. The station by the train, the Chairman and Ranking performance metric is the number of § 273.5 On-time performance and train Member of the Committee on delays. detraining passengers, the number of Transportation and Infrastructure of the late passengers, and the average minutes (a) Customer on-time performance— House of Representatives, the Chairman late that late customers arrive at their (1) Metric. The customer on-time and Ranking Member of the Committee detraining stations, reported by route, performance metric is the percentage of on Commerce, Science, and by train, and by station. The average all customers on an intercity passenger Transportation of the Senate, the minutes late per late customer rail train who arrive at their detraining Chairman and Ranking Member of the calculation excludes on-time customers point no later than 15 minutes after Committee on Appropriations of the that arrive no later than 15 minutes after their published scheduled arrival time, House of Representatives, the Chairman their scheduled time. reported by train and by route. and Ranking Member of the Committee (g) Host running time. The host (2) Standard. The customer on-time on Appropriations of the Senate, the running time metric is the average performance minimum standard is 80 Secretary of Transportation, and the actual running time and the median percent for any 2 consecutive calendar Chairman of the Surface Transportation actual running time compared with the quarters. Board, which states: scheduled running time between the (3) Application. (i) Except as provided (i) The Amtrak train schedule(s) at first and final reporting points for a host in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, the issue; railroad set forth in the Amtrak customer on-time performance standard (ii) The specific components of the schedule skeleton, reported by route, by shall apply to a train beginning on the train schedule(s) on which Amtrak and train, and by host railroad (excluding first full calendar quarter after May 17, host railroad cannot reach agreement; switching and terminal railroads). 2021. (iii) Amtrak’s position regarding the (ii) If a train schedule is a disputed disagreed upon components of the train § 273.7 Customer service. schedule on or before May 17, 2021, schedule(s); (a) Customer satisfaction. The then the customer on-time performance (iv) Host railroad’s position regarding customer satisfaction metric is the standard for the disputed schedule shall the disagreed upon components of the percent of respondents to the Amtrak apply beginning on the second full train schedule(s); and customer satisfaction survey who (v) Amtrak and the host railroad’s calendar quarter after May 17, 2021. provided a score of 70 percent or greater (b) Ridership data. The ridership data plan and expectation date to resolve the for their ‘‘overall satisfaction’’ on a 100 metric is the number of host railroads to disagreement(s). The requirement to point scale for their most recent trip, by whom Amtrak has provided ridership transmit this joint letter and status route, shown both adjusted for data consistent with this paragraph (b), report ends for the train schedule at performance and unadjusted. reported by host railroad and by month. issue when the uncertified schedule (b) Amtrak personnel. The Amtrak Not later than December 16, 2020, becomes a certified schedule. personnel metric is the average score Amtrak must provide host railroad- (3) Ongoing coordination between from respondents to the Amtrak specific ridership data to each host Amtrak and host railroads. When customer satisfaction survey for their railroad for the preceding 24 months. conditions have changed that impact a overall review of Amtrak personnel on On the 15th day of every month certified schedule, Amtrak or a host their most recent trip, by route. following December 16, 2020, Amtrak railroad may seek to modify the certified must provide host railroad-specific schedule. The customer on-time (c) Information given. The ridership data to each host railroad for performance standard in paragraph information given metric is the average the preceding month. (a)(2) of this section remains in effect for score from respondents to the Amtrak (c) Certified schedule—(1) Metric. The the existing certified schedule, until a customer satisfaction survey for their certified schedule metric is the number modified schedule is jointly certified. overall review of information provided of certified schedules, uncertified (d) Train delays. The train delays by Amtrak on their most recent trip, by schedules, and disputed schedules, metric is the minutes of delay for all route. reported by train, by route, and by host Amtrak-responsible delays, host- (d) On-board comfort. The on-board railroad (excluding switching and responsible delays, and third party comfort metric is the average score from terminal railroads), identified in a delays, for the host railroad territory respondents to the Amtrak customer notice to the Federal Railroad within each route. The train delays satisfaction survey for their overall Administrator by Amtrak: metric is reported by delay code by: review of on-board comfort on their (i) On December 16, 2020; total minutes of delay; Amtrak- most recent trip, by route. (ii) On 19, 2021; responsible delays; Amtrak’s host- (e) On-board cleanliness. The on- (iii) On , 2021; responsible delays; Amtrak’s host board cleanliness metric is the average (iv) On , 2021; responsible delays and Amtrak- score from respondents to the Amtrak (v) On , 2021; responsible delays, combined; non- customer satisfaction survey for their (vi) On May 17, 2021; Amtrak host-responsible delays; and overall review of on-board cleanliness (vii) On November 16, 2021; and third party delays. The train delays on their most recent trip, by route. (viii) Every 12 months after November metric is also reported by the number of (f) On-board food service. The on- 16, 2021. non-Amtrak host-responsible delay board food service metric is the average (2) Reporting. If a train schedule is minutes disputed by host railroad and score from respondents to the Amtrak reported as a an uncertified schedule not resolved by Amtrak. customer satisfaction survey for their under paragraph (c)(1)(vi), (vii), or (viii) (e) Train delays per 10,000 train overall review of on-board food service of this section, then Amtrak and the miles. The train delays per 10,000 train on their most recent trip, by route.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 73002 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 221 / Monday, November 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

§ 273.9 Financial. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE anonymous). Attachments to electronic (a) Cost recovery. The cost recovery comments will be accepted in Microsoft National Oceanic and Atmospheric metric is Amtrak’s adjusted operating Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats Administration revenue divided by Amtrak’s adjusted only. operating expense. This metric is 50 CFR Part 660 Electronic Access reported at the corporate level/system- wide and for each route and is reported [Docket No. 200610–0156; RTID 0648– This notice is accessible online at the in constant dollars of the reporting year XA570] Office of the Federal Register’s website based on the Office of Management and at https://www.federalregister.gov/. Budget’s gross domestic product chain Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Background information and documents deflator. Fisheries Off West Coast States; are available at the NMFS West Coast Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2020 Region website at https:// (b) Avoidable operating costs covered Tribal Fishery Allocations for Pacific www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/pacific- by passenger revenue. The avoidable Whiting; Reapportionment Between whiting#management. operating costs covered by passenger Tribal and Non-Tribal Sectors revenue metric is the percent of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: avoidable operating costs divided by AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Stacey Miller (West Coast Region, passenger revenue for each route, shown Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and NMFS), phone: 503–231–6290 or email: with and without State operating Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), [email protected]. payments. Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (c) Fully allocated core operating ACTION: Inseason reapportionment of Background costs covered by passenger revenue. The tribal Pacific whiting allocation. fully allocated core operating costs Pacific Whiting SUMMARY: This document announces the covered by passenger revenue metric is Pacific whiting (Merluccius reapportionment of 40,000 metric tons the percent of fully allocated core productus) is a very productive species of Pacific whiting from the tribal operating costs divided by passenger with highly variable recruitment (the allocation to the non-tribal commercial revenue for each route, shown with and biomass of fish that mature and enter fishery sectors via automatic action on without State operating payments. the fishery each year) and a relatively , 2020. This short life span compared to other (d) Average ridership. The average reapportionment is to allow full groundfish species. Pacific whiting has ridership metric is the number of utilization of the Pacific whiting the largest annual allowable harvest passenger-miles divided by train-mile resource. for each route. levels (by volume) of the more than 90 DATES: The reapportionment of Pacific (e) Total ridership. The total ridership groundfish species managed under the whiting went into effect at 12 p.m. local metric is the total number of passengers Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery time, September 16, 2020, and is on Amtrak trains, reported by route. Management Plan (FMP), which governs effective through , 2020. the groundfish fishery off Washington, § 273.11 Public benefits. Comments will be accepted through Oregon, and California. The coastwide , 2020. Pacific whiting stock is managed jointly (a) Connectivity. The connectivity ADDRESSES: by the United States and Canada, and metric is the percent of passengers You may submit comments, mature Pacific whiting are commonly connecting to and from other Amtrak identified by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0027 available to vessels operating in U.S. routes, updated on an annual basis. by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all waters from April through December. (b) Missed connections. The missed electronic public comments via the Background on the stock assessment, connections metric is the percent of Federal eRulemaking Portal at and the establishment of the 2020 Total passengers connecting to/from other www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA- Allowable Catch (TAC), for Pacific Amtrak routes who missed connections NMFS-2020-0027. Click the ‘‘Comment whiting was provided in the final rule due to a late arrival from another Now!’’ icon, complete the required for the 2020 Pacific whiting harvest Amtrak train, reported by route and fields, and enter or attach your specifications, published , 2020 updated on an annual basis. comments. (85 FR 36803). Pacific whiting is (c) Community access. The • Mail: Barry A. Thom, Regional allocated to the Pacific Coast treaty community access metric is the percent Administrator, West Coast Region, tribes (tribal fishery) and to three non- of Amtrak passenger-trips to and from NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Center Blvd., tribal commercial sectors: The catcher/ not well-served communities, updated Suite #1100, Portland, OR 97232, Attn: processor cooperative (C/P Coop), the on an annual basis. Stacey Miller. mothership cooperative (MS Coop), and (d) Service availability. The service Instructions: Comments sent by any the Shorebased Individual Fishery availability metric is the total number of other method to any other address or Quota (IFQ) Program. daily Amtrak trains per 100,000 individual, or received after the end of This notice announces the residents in a metropolitan statistical the comment period, may not be reapportionment of 40,000 metric tons area (MSA) for each of the top 100 considered by NMFS. All comments (mt) of Pacific whiting from the tribal MSAs in the United States, shown in received are a part of the public record. allocation to the non-tribal commercial total and adjusted for time of day, All personal identifying information sectors on September 16, 2020. updated on an annual basis. (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential Regulations at 50 CFR 660.131(h) business information, or otherwise contain provisions that allow the Issued in Washington, DC. sensitive information submitted Regional Administrator to reapportion Gerald A. Reynolds, voluntarily by the sender will be Pacific whiting from the tribal Chief Counsel. publicly accessible. NMFS will accept allocation, specified at 50 CFR 660.50, [FR Doc. 2020–25212 Filed 11–13–20; 8:45 am] anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in that will not be harvested by the end of BILLING CODE 4910–06–P the required fields if you wish to remain the fishing year to other sectors.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Nov 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM 16NOR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES