[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33028-33029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1136
[STB Ex Parte No. 624]
Removal of Obsolete Regulations Concerning Rail Passenger Fare
Increases
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is removing from the
Code of Federal Regulations obsolete regulations concerning rail
passenger carrier commutation or suburban fare increases.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA),
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) and
established the Board within the Department of Transportation. Section
204(a) of the ICCTA provides that ``[t]he Board shall promptly rescind
all regulations established by the [ICC] that are based on provisions
of law repealed and not substantively reenacted by this Act.''
The regulations at 49 CFR part 1136 require that a rail passenger
carrier proposing commutation or suburban fare increases shall
concurrently file tariffs and verified statements on the former ICC and
on the Governor and appropriate State or county regulatory agency. The
carrier is also to certify that the notice provisions of 49 CFR 1312.5
have been met.1 In a notice of proposed rulemaking in this
proceeding served and published in the Federal Register on February 24,
1997, we proposed to remove part 1136. In response to that notice, we
received a comment from Joseph C. Szabo, for and on behalf of United
Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board (UTU-IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These regulations describe, inter alia, the placement, form,
and content of the notice given when a rail passenger carrier seeks
a fare increase. The Board has eliminated these regulations.
Regulations for the Publication, Posting and Filing of Tariffs for
the Transportation of Property by or with a Water Carrier in the
Noncontiguous Domestic Trade, STB Ex Parte No. 618 (STB served Apr.
17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
In Notice of Increases in Frt. Rates and Pass. Fares, 349 I.C.C.
741 (1975), the ICC issued regulations for rail and motor carriers to
give advance notice of and justification for commutation and suburban
passenger fare increases.2 The purpose of the rules was to
facilitate the filing of potential protests seeking the suspension and/
or investigation of fare increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The rules were originally issued at 49 CFR part 1105. They
were subsequently redesignated in part 1136. 47 FR 49576, November
1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the ICC modified these regulations by removing their
application to motor passenger carriers. Practice and Procedure--Misc.
Amendments--Revisions, 6 I.C.C.2d 587 (1990).3 The ICC
reasoned that it could not investigate, suspend, revise or revoke for
being unreasonable a rate proposed by a motor passenger carrier acting
independently and, moreover, there had been no complaints or protests
resulting from collective ratemaking activity by passenger carriers.
See Practice and Procedure--Miscellaneous Amendments--Revision, Ex
Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 73) (ICC served Oct. 10, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This decision issued the part 1136 regulations (designated
49 CFR 1136.1) that are now in effect: A rail passenger carrier
proposing commutation or suburban fare increases shall concurrently
file appropriate tariffs with the Commission and serve supporting
verified statements on the Commission (at its headquarters office
and at each Commission office in States affected by the proposal)
and on the Governor and appropriate State or County regulatory
agency in each affected State, certifying that the notice
requirements of 49 CFR 1312.5 have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion and Conclusions
The only party responding to the February notice was UTU-IL, which
states that its international organization is the collective bargaining
representative for certain employees of rail carriers providing
passenger train transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
UTU-IL asserts, without substantiation or elaboration, that ``[t]he
interest of rail carrier employees in maximum train service is
sometimes compromised by the different fare levels, or by the desire to
discourage business'', and that ``[r]ail employee organizations desire
to monitor the fare changes, from both an individual route and regional
basis.''
UTU-IL argues that, even though Congress eliminated tariff filing
with the Board, we should maintain the requirement of filing
justification statements for commutation or suburban fare increases.
UTU-IL contends that this would not be a burden upon the railroads, and
that they have continued to file justification statements with the
Board as information.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ UTU-IL states that a justification statement was filed on
February 17, 1996, with tariff CSX 001-B. However, the Board's
policy has been to return or not consider rail tariff filings
proffered after December 31, 1995, in light of the ICCTA's repeal of
rail tariff filing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to a justification statement, UTU-IL asks that other
information, such as ``interstate tariffs,'' be made available to the
public. It contends that, because the Board can require reports from
freight rail carriers (49 U.S.C. 721(b)), we should require the
submission of information concerning freight carrier participation in
mass transportation related to local authorities. UTU-IL asks that the
Board establish notice and disclosure requirements for rail passenger
fares similar to those we established for rail freight rates in
Disclosure, Publication & Notice of Change of Rates--Rail Carriage, 1
S.T.B. 153 (1996) (Rail Disclosure).
We conclude that the regulations in part 1136 can be eliminated. As
explained in the February notice, under the ICCTA, with certain
exceptions not relevant here,5 ``the Board does not have
jurisdiction * * * over mass transportation provided by a local
governmental authority.'' 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(2).6 Even as to
rail passenger transportation that might not qualify for that
exemption, our regulatory authority is quite limited. The vast bulk, if
not all of such transportation, is currently provided by Amtrak, over
which we have no rate regulatory authority. The tariff filing
requirements formerly applicable to rail carriers at former 49 U.S.C.
10761 and 10762 have been repealed,7 and the circumstances
under
[[Page 33029]]
which we have authority to determine the reasonableness of rates are
extremely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The exceptions, listed in 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(A), concern
safety, employee representation for collective bargaining, and other
employee-related matters. Also, under 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(B), the
Board has jurisdiction over transportation by local transportation
authorities relating to use of terminal facilities (49 U.S.C. 11102)
and switch connections and tracks (49 U.S.C. 11103).
\6\ ``This provision * * * changes the statement of agency
jurisdiction to reflect curtailment of regulatory jurisdiction in
areas such as passenger transportation * * *. [A]lthough regulation
of passenger transportation is generally eliminated, public
transportation authorities * * * may invoke the terminal area and
reciprocal switching access remedies of section 11102 and 11103.''
See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 422, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 167 (1995).
\7\ New 49 U.S.C. 11101 (b) and (d) require disclosure of rail
common carrier rates and service terms. New 49 U.S.C. 11101(c)
requires rail carriers providing common carriage not to increase
rates without advance notice. See Rail Disclosure and 49 CFR part
1300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTU-IL has not provided independent grounds to maintain a
requirement for justification statements for fare increases over which
we have such limited regulatory authority. UTU-IL has not shown how it
or its members directly benefits from the filing of a justification
statement with the Governor and the relevant state or county regulatory
agency. Moreover, the UTU-IL assertion that the filing of justification
statements is not a burden on carriers is unsupported.
Moreover, we must reject the UTU-IL suggestion that we can require
reports from freight carriers concerning their participation in mass
transportation for local authorities. While the Board has jurisdiction
over freight carriers under section 721(b), under section 10501(c)(2),
we do not have jurisdiction in most cases ``over mass transportation
provided by a local governmental authority.'' The statutory definition
of local governmental authority ``includes a person or entity that
contracts with the local governmental authority to provide
transportation services * * *.'' 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(1)(A)(ii).
Accordingly, we see no basis for requiring that rail carriers provide
information concerning their participation in mass transportation
related to local governmental authority.
Finally, we see no need to institute a rulemaking proceeding
regarding disclosure of interstate passenger fares. As to any passenger
transportation not covered by the mass transportation exemption of
section 10501(c)(2), we believe that the pertinent rate disclosure
regulations issued at 49 CFR part 1300 would cover required disclosure
of passenger fares.
The Board concludes that the removal of the rule in part 1136 would
not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small
entities. No comments were filed on this issue in response to the
February notice. Moreover, passengers are usually individuals and not
small entities within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601 and, in any event, we
do not expect that any effect on them would be significant.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1136
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.
Decided: June 6, 1997.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
PART 1136--[REMOVED]
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by removing part 1136.
[FR Doc. 97-15965 Filed 6-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
