Montana Rail Link, Inc.-Petition for Rulemaking-Classification of Carriers

Citation86 FR 17548
Record Number2021-06963
Published date05 April 2021
SectionRules and Regulations
CourtSurface Transportation Board
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
                [Rules and Regulations]
                [Pages 17548-17551]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2021-06963]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
                49 CFR Part 1201
                [Docket No. EP 763]
                Montana Rail Link, Inc.--Petition for Rulemaking--Classification
                of Carriers
                AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
                ACTION: Final rule.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting a
                final rule amending the thresholds for classifying rail carriers.
                DATES: The rule is effective June 4, 2021.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391.
                Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
                Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions
                section 1-1(a), rail carriers are grouped into one of three classes for
                purposes of accounting and reporting.\1\ The Board's classification of
                rail carriers affects the degree to which they must file annual,
                quarterly, and other operational reports, see, e.g., 49 CFR pt. 1243
                and also is used in a variety of other contexts, including
                differentiating the legal standards and procedures that apply to
                certain transactions subject to Board licensing, see, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
                10902, 11324, 11325, and prescribing labor protection conditions, see,
                e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10903(b)(2), 11326, among others.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \1\ The agency ``has broad discretion to require rail carriers
                to report financial and operating data, and to prescribe an
                underlying accounting system to produce that information.'' Mont.
                Rail Link, Inc. & Wis. Cent. Ltd., Joint Pet. for Rulemaking with
                Respect to 49 CFR part 1201 (1992 Rulemaking), 8 I.C.C.2d 625, 631
                (1992); see also 49 U.S.C. 11144, 11145, 11161-64.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The class to which any rail carrier belongs is determined by its
                annual operating revenues after application of a revenue deflator
                adjustment. 49 CFR pt. 1201, section 1-1(b)(1). Currently, Class I
                carriers have annual operating revenues of $504,803,294 or more, Class
                II carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $504,803,294
                and more than $40,384,263, and Class III carriers have annual operating
                revenues of $40,384,263 or less, all when adjusted for inflation.
                Section 1-1(a) (setting thresholds unadjusted for inflation); Indexing
                the Annual Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 10,
                2020) (calculating revenue deflator factor and publishing thresholds
                adjusted for inflation based on 2019 data).\2\ The revenue
                classification levels for railroads set forth at 49 CFR part 1201,
                General Instructions section 1-1(a) were adopted in 1992 by the Board's
                predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the 1992
                Rulemaking.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \2\ Instruction section 1-1(a) currently defines Class I
                carriers as those with annual operating revenues (in Year 1991
                dollars) of $250 million or more. To prevent this threshold from
                being influenced by the effects of inflation, each year the STB
                calculates a ``deflator'' factor that converts the value of today's
                dollar into its equivalent 1991 value. This deflator factor is then
                applied to a carrier's current revenues and the result is compared
                to the $250 million threshold. The railroad revenue deflator
                formula, which is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index
                developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is as follows: Current
                Year's Revenues x (1991 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index).
                49 CFR pt. 1201, section 1-1 Note A. The Board publishes annually an
                updated deflator factor. In addition, the Board applies the
                reciprocal of the deflator factor to identify where the $250 million
                threshold lies expressed in current dollars. The current Class I
                revenue threshold, as noted above, corresponds to $504,803,294 in
                2019 dollars. The Class II/Class III threshold, which is listed in
                Instruction section 1-1(a) as $20 million, corresponds to
                $40,384,263 in 2019 dollars.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Background
                 On February 14, 2020, Montana Rail Link, Inc. (MRL), filed a
                petition for rulemaking to amend the Board's rail carrier
                classification regulations. In its petition, MRL requested that the
                Board increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers to $900
                million. (Pet. 1.) MRL contended that it continues to be a regional
                carrier operationally and economically but may exceed the Class I
                revenue threshold within two years. (Id.) Citing principles drawn from
                the 1992 Rulemaking, in which the revenue thresholds were last raised,
                MRL asked that the Board address ``whether a regional carrier such as
                MRL should be treated as a Class I carrier, taking into account (1) the
                financial and operational differences between MRL and existing Class I
                carriers, and (2) the cost-benefit analysis of imposing Class I
                requirements on MRL.'' (Id. at 12.)
                 MRL submitted eight letters in support of its petition.\3\ No
                replies to MRL's petition were received.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \3\ Letters of support were from the Montana Contractors'
                Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Montana
                Grain Elevator Association, Montana Petroleum Association, Inc.,
                Montana Taxpayers Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Treasure
                State Resources Association, and Montana Wood Products Association.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 On May 14, 2020, the Board initiated a rulemaking proceeding to
                consider MRL's petition and consider issues related to the Class I
                carrier revenue threshold determination. The Board invited ``comment
                about whether it should amend 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions
                section 1-1(a), to increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers,
                and, if so, whether $900 million or another amount would be
                appropriate.'' Mont. Rail Link, Inc.--Pet. for Rulemaking--
                Classification of Carriers, EP 763, slip op. at 2 (STB served May 14,
                2020).
                 The Board received two comments in response to its May 14, 2020
                decision. On June 15, 2020, the American Short Line and Regional
                Railroad Association (ASLRRA) filed in support of MRL's petition,
                arguing, among other things, that Class II carriers such as MRL are
                distinctly different from Class I carriers and should continue to be
                classified in their current category. (ASLRRA Comment 2-4, June 15,
                2020.) ASLRRA stated that there is a ``massive'' revenue gap between
                the largest Class II and the smallest Class I carrier, (id. at 3), and
                that the accounting, financial, and other burdens imposed on a Class II
                carrier by becoming a Class I carrier would outweigh any resulting
                benefits, (id. at 2-4). Also on June 15, 2020, the Transportation
                Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), a coalition of 33
                [[Page 17549]]
                affiliate unions, filed in opposition to MRL's petition. Among other
                things, TTD raised concerns about the impact on MRL employees with
                respect to labor protective conditions if the Class I threshold were
                raised and argued that MRL had not shown that raising the threshold is
                appropriate or necessary. (TTD Comment 1-2, June 15, 2020.) MRL filed a
                reply on July 2, 2020, reiterating that its operating and financial
                profiles are distinct from those of the current Class I carriers
                (noting, for example, that in 2018 it operated only about 720 miles of
                mainline track, nearly all of which is in one state, whereas the
                smallest current Class I carrier operated 3,397 miles of track across
                10 states and two countries) and that significant burdens would be
                imposed on MRL if the threshold is not increased, while limited, if
                any, benefits would accrue to the public. (MRL Reply 2, 5, July 2,
                2020.)
                 On September 30, 2020, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed
                Rulemaking to amend its rail carrier classification regulations. The
                proposed amendments would raise the Class I revenue threshold from
                $504,803,294 (as adjusted for inflation) to $900 million and have the
                effect of excluding MRL and other similarly situated carriers from
                Class I status unless they have met the proposed revenue threshold for
                three years. Mont. Rail Link, Inc.--Pet. for Rulemaking--Classification
                of Carriers (NPRM), EP 763 (STB served Sept. 30, 2020). The Board
                sought comment on the proposed amendments.
                Comments on the NPRM
                 In response to the NPRM, the Board received comments from ASLRRA on
                October 29, 2020, and from TTD and the National Grain and Feed
                Association (NGFA) on November 2, 2020. On December 1, 2020, MRL
                submitted its reply.
                 ASLRRA fully supports the Board's proposed amendments and
                references and reiterates the arguments it made in support of MRL's
                proposal in its June 15, 2020 comment. (ASLRRA Comment 2, Oct. 29,
                2020.) According to ASLRRA, the Board's proposal recognizes that Class
                II carriers, such as MRL, are operationally and financially different
                from Class I carriers and would enable regional railroads to continue
                to serve their customers efficiently. (Id.) ASLRRA further notes that
                the Board's proposal would not deprive regional carriers of the benefit
                of the Short Line Rehabilitation Tax Credit, which has provided MRL
                almost $3 million per year in additional funds to invest in
                infrastructure, and the Railroad Industry Agreement, which provides a
                mechanism for short lines to work together to increase rail traffic.
                (Id.; ASLRRA Comment 4, June 15, 2020.)
                 TTD opposes the Board's proposed amendments. (TTD Comment 1, Nov.
                2, 2020.) TTD also reiterates its concern that the proposed amendments
                would deny employees certain protective conditions that would have
                otherwise applied. (Id. at 2.) TTD argues that its position in its June
                15, 2020 comment was not that status quo conditions would worsen for
                employees, but rather that maintaining MRL's Class II status would deny
                employees coverage that they would otherwise be entitled to if MRL
                became a Class I carrier. (Id. at 2.) TTD states that the Board should
                give greater consideration to how the proposed amendments may impact
                the application of employee protective conditions. (Id.) TTD also
                states that it believes that MRL and the Board have failed to document
                the undue burden that Class I status would place on MRL, or a similar
                carrier. (Id.) TTD argues that MRL has provided no information that
                suggests that the costs of becoming a Class I carrier would be overly
                burdensome. (Id.) TTD requests that the Board either withdraw its NPRM
                or, in the alternative, alleviate only reporting/accounting burdens on
                MRL, instead of ``permitting the evasion of protective conditions.''
                (Id. at 3.)
                 NGFA does not oppose the proposed amendments but argues that the
                Board needs to guard against exempting Class II carriers from
                regulatory oversight and standards as it increases the revenue
                thresholds. (NGFA Comment 2-5.) NGFA states that it does not oppose
                increasing the Class I revenue threshold to $900 million for freight
                carriers and acknowledges that MRL's petition is supported by its
                Montana affiliate, the Montana Grain Elevator Association. (Id. at 2.)
                NGFA also states that denoting MRL as a Class I carrier would make it
                ineligible for assistance such as the short line rehabilitation tax
                credits; the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation
                and Infrastructure Express Program, which provides funds to Class II
                and III carriers to repair tracks; and the Railroad Industry Agreement,
                which outlines ways Class I and short line carriers are allowed to
                collaborate to resolve issues concerning car supply, service quality,
                routing, and interchange requirements. (Id. at 2-3.)
                 Nonetheless, NGFA argues that MRL is a significant regional carrier
                that has a virtual monopoly on all rail traffic in the state of Montana
                and that MRL often exercises that market power with its customers in a
                manner not dissimilar from Class I carriers. (Id. at 3-4.) NGFA
                contends that regulatory oversight should apply to Class II carriers.
                (Id. at 3-5.) For example, NGFA argues that (1) simplified standards
                being considered by the Board for rail customers to challenge
                unreasonable rail rates, such as Final Offer Rate Review,\4\ should
                apply to Class II carriers; (2) the Board should examine whether to
                require larger Class II carriers like MRL to submit data sufficient to
                enable rail customers to analyze whether to bring a rate challenge
                under the STB's Three-Benchmark methodology; and (3) the Board should
                consider applying to at least Class II carriers any new rules related
                to reciprocal switching.\5\ (Id. at 4-5.)
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \4\ The Board, in September 2019, proposed a new rate
                reasonableness review process that features certain attributes of a
                final offer selection process. See Final Offer Rate Review, EP 755
                (STB served Sept. 12, 2019).
                 \5\ The Board, in July 2016, proposed to modify its regulations
                governing competitive rail access, including reciprocal switching.
                See Pet. for Rulemaking to Adopt Revised Competitive Switching Rules
                (Reciprocal Switching), EP 711 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served July 27,
                2016).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 In reply, MRL reasserts that it continues to function as a Class II
                carrier, not a Class I carrier, and requests that the Board adopt the
                amendments put forth in the NPRM. (MRL Reply 4, Dec. 1, 2020.) In
                response to TTD's argument that increasing the Class I threshold will
                deprive MRL employees of enhanced labor protections, MRL argues that
                the current level of labor protection is fair and appropriate because
                its operating and financial characteristics continue to be that of a
                Class II carrier, even with rising revenues. (Id. at 1-2 (citing Pet. 7
                n.4).) MRL also argues that TTD gives no rationale to support why MRL
                should be excused only from the Class I accounting and reporting
                requirements and not the Class I labor protection requirements. (MRL
                Reply 2, Dec. 1, 2020.) MRL reiterates that the Class I accounting and
                reporting requirements would impose a significant burden on MRL,
                without any significant offsetting public benefit. (Id.) As to NGFA's
                comments about MRL having a monopoly on traffic in Montana, MRL argues
                it does not generally have ratemaking authority for its freight
                movements because BNSF Railway Company, its sole interchange partner,
                sets the freight transportation rates for approximately 96% of MRL's
                traffic, excluding switching. (Id. at 3.) MRL asserts that NGFA's
                argument that the Board's regulatory oversight should apply to Class II
                carriers is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. (Id.)
                [[Page 17550]]
                Final Rule
                 After considering the record, the Board agrees that MRL and any
                other Class II carriers that may be approaching the current revenue
                threshold are properly classified as regional carriers rather than as
                Class I carriers. The operational characteristics of regional carriers,
                like MRL, significantly differentiate them from Class I carriers. See
                NPRM, EP 763, slip op. at 4. The record establishes that even the
                largest Class II carriers, such as MRL, have much smaller rail networks
                and service territories than Class I carriers, have local or regional
                service territories, and lower traffic densities, (MRL Reply 3, Dec. 1,
                2020; MRL Reply 2, July 2, 2020; ASLRRA Comment 2, June 15, 2020); are
                heavily dependent in many critical ways on their Class I interchange
                partners, (ASLRRA Comment 2, June 15, 2020); and have more limited and
                less diverse traffic bases than Class I carriers, (MRL Reply 2, July 2,
                2020; ASLRRA Comment 3, June 15, 2020). Similarly, even the largest
                Class II carriers generate far less revenue than the smallest Class I.
                (MRL Reply 1, July 2, 2020; ASLRRA Comment 3, June 15, 2020.)
                 Based on this record, including the comments and reply received in
                response to the NPRM, regional carriers, such as MRL, do not possess
                the comparative attributes of Class I carriers. Considering the
                operating and financial characteristics of these carriers, it is
                appropriate to continue to classify these railroads as Class II
                carriers, rather than classifying them as Class I carriers and imposing
                on them the burdens associated with a Class I classification. Doing so
                maintains an appropriate balance between ensuring the availability of
                accurate cost information and avoiding imposing additional regulatory
                requirements on railroads when expanded regulation is not necessary;
                this also furthers the rail transportation policy. See 49 U.S.C.
                10101(2), (13). Additionally, the Board determines that $900 million is
                a reasonable demarcation between Class I railroads and Class II
                railroads because it is sufficiently above the current Class II annual
                revenue level and below the revenue level of the smallest Class I
                carrier, maintaining an appropriate division between the two classes of
                carriers for the foreseeable future. See NPRM, EP 763, slip op. at 5-6.
                No commenter raised specific concerns with the Board's proposed $900
                million figure.
                 TTD's argument that the Board should not change the revenue
                threshold due to the impact on labor protections remains unpersuasive.
                (See TTD Comment 2, Nov. 2, 2020.) MRL's employees have long been
                subject to the labor protections applicable to Class II carriers, and
                that will not change as a result of this rulemaking. With respect to
                TTD's argument that MRL employees will be denied the additional labor
                protections that would be available to them if MRL were classified as a
                Class I carrier, the Board finds that because MRL is more appropriately
                classified as a Class II carrier based on its operational and financial
                characteristics, it is also appropriate for MRL to continue to provide
                the labor protections of a Class II carrier. Nothing in the record,
                including TTD's comments, indicates that MRL's employees are being
                inadequately protected today. Moreover, there is nothing that indicates
                that MRL's operational or financial characteristics have changed
                significantly as it approached the current revenue threshold.
                 The Board also disagrees with TTD's assertion that there is no
                record evidence of the undue burden that Class I status would place on
                MRL or similarly situated carriers. There is no question that Class I
                railroads face much more substantial financial reporting and accounting
                requirements under the Board's regulations than Class II or III
                railroads do. NPRM, EP 763, slip op. at 5. Among other requirements,
                Class I carriers must submit annual R-1 reports, see 49 CFR 1241.11,
                quarterly operating reports, see 49 CFR pt. 1243, and service
                performance data, see 49 CFR pt. 1250. Each of these reports, while
                important to the Board's regulation with regard to larger carriers, has
                an associated compliance burden. MRL's petition discussed the increased
                burden it would face complying with just a subset of the Class I
                reports.\6\ (Pet. 8-9; see also ASLRRA Comment 2-4, June 15, 2020.) The
                NPRM also recognized that the regulatory compliance burden of a Class I
                designation by the Board extends beyond the Board's regulations, see
                NPRM, EP 763, slip op. at 5, and MRL's reply provided several examples
                of these regulatory impacts, including in programs administered by the
                Federal Railroad Administration, (MRL Reply 2-3). Moreover, as the NPRM
                indicated, the Board is concerned not just with the absolute burden,
                but also with the relative lack of benefits associated with such
                reporting by carriers with MRL's characteristics. NPRM, EP 763, slip
                op. at 5.\7\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \6\ In its petition, MRL estimated it would have to expend at
                least $150,000 annually to prepare the required reports, in addition
                to the costs associated with converting its accounting system,
                training employees, and maintaining and recording the reports. (Pet.
                9.)
                 \7\ TTD does not argue that there would be potential benefits to
                classifying carriers like MRL as Class Is (other than TTD's labor-
                related arguments addressed above). Nor has TTD made the case for
                its hybrid approach that would treat MRL and similar carriers as
                Class II railroads for accounting purposes but as Class I railroads
                for other purposes. As the decision indicates, there are material
                differences between larger Class II railroads and Class I railroads.
                TTD has not demonstrated that particular regulatory issues exist
                that would warrant ignoring these material differences.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 While NGFA does not oppose the proposed amendments, NGFA does
                express concern that MRL operates as a monopoly, and NGFA maintains
                that regulatory oversight should apply to Class II carriers. (NGFA
                Comment 3-5.) As a Class II carrier, MRL will continue to be subject to
                Board regulation and the applicable provisions of the Interstate
                Commerce Act, including those governing rate reasonableness and
                reasonable practices. NGFA's argument that specific proposed
                regulations, such as those related to particular rate case processes
                and reciprocal switching procedures, should apply to Class II carriers
                is beyond the scope of this proceeding.\8\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \8\ The Board notes that NGFA has raised similar concerns in
                other dockets, which are currently under consideration. See, e.g.,
                NGFA Comment 10, Nov. 12, 2019, Final Offer Rate Review, EP 755;
                NGFA Comment 4-5, Oct. 26, 2016, Reciprocal Switching, EP 711 (Sub-
                No. 1); NGFA Reply 20, Jan. 13, 2017, Reciprocal Switching, EP 711
                (Sub-No. 1).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For the foregoing reasons, the Board will adopt as a final rule the
                amendments to its rail carrier classification regulations as proposed
                in the NPRM, without modification. The final rule set forth below will
                raise the Class I revenue threshold to $900 million and round the
                current Class II/Class III threshold to $40.4 million. The final rule
                also will amend Note A to replace the 1991 Average Index with the 2019
                Average Index, as the new threshold levels will be calculated in 2019
                dollars.
                Regulatory Flexibility Act
                 The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
                generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would
                have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
                entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the
                effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze
                effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3)
                make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In
                its final rule, the agency must either include a final regulatory
                flexibility analysis, section 604(a), or certify that the proposed rule
                [[Page 17551]]
                would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
                entities,'' section 605(b).
                 Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities
                of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to
                perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of impacts on small entities
                only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the
                impact must be a direct impact on small entities ``whose conduct is
                circumscribed or mandated'' by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v.
                Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
                 The amendments to the Board's regulations adopted here are intended
                to update the Board's class classifications and do not mandate or
                circumscribe the conduct of small entities. For the purpose of RFA
                analysis for rail carriers subject to the Board's jurisdiction, the
                Board defines a ``small business'' as only including those rail
                carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR part 1201,
                General Instructions section 1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under
                the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) (with
                the Board Member Begeman dissenting). Here, no substantive changes are
                being made to the Class III threshold, as the Board is only updating
                the regulations to reflect the current Class III threshold in 2019
                dollars (rounded) as opposed to 1991 dollars. Therefore, the Board
                certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules, if
                promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
                substantial number of small entities within the meaning of RFA.
                Paperwork Reduction Act
                 The Board's proposal does not contain a new or amended information
                collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
                44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
                Congressional Review Act
                 Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, the
                Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule
                as a non-major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
                List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1201
                 Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.
                 It is ordered:
                 1. The Board adopts the final rule set forth in this decision.
                Notice of the final rule will be published in the Federal Register.
                 2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
                for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
                 3. This decision is effective on June 4, 2021.
                 Decided: March 30, 2021.
                 By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and
                Schultz.
                Brendetta Jones,
                Clearance Clerk.
                 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface
                Transportation Board amends title 49, chapter X, part 1201 of the Code
                of Federal Regulations as follows:
                PART 1201--RAILROAD COMPANIES
                0
                1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as follows:
                 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.
                0
                2. In subpart A, amend the General Instructions, by revising Sec. 1-
                1(a) and Note A to Sec. 1-1 to read as follows:
                Subpart A--Uniform System of Accounts
                * * * * *
                General Instructions
                 1-1 Classification of carriers. (a) For purposes of accounting and
                reporting, carriers are grouped into the following three classes:
                 Class I: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of $900
                million or more after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula
                shown in Note A.
                 Class II: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of less
                than $900 million but in excess of $40.4 million after applying the
                railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
                 Class III: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of
                $40.4 million or less after applying the railroad revenue deflator
                formula shown in Note A.
                * * * * *
                 Note A: The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the
                Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor
                Statistics. The formula is as follows: Current Year's Revenues x
                (2019 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index).
                * * * * *
                [FR Doc. 2021-06963 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT