Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 19: Regulations Amending the Transportation Information Regulations (Freight Rail Data)

May 7, 2022

Statutory authority
Canada Transportation Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: The Transportation Modernization Act (TMA) introduced temporary requirements for class 1 rail carriers to report service and performance information (which is reported publicly) and waybill data (which is confidential). These requirements will remain in place until they are replaced by regulations. While these temporary reporting requirements served the purpose of ensuring that data would be available soon after the TMA received royal assent, they also left significant room for improvement.

Description: The proposed amendments would replace the temporary requirements in the TMA with regulatory requirements in the Transportation Information Regulations (TIR or the Regulations). The amendments would significantly improve the service and performance indicators, while also reducing the amount of data that must be reported by smaller class 1 rail carriers. Minor adjustments are being proposed to the waybill-reporting requirement for the largest class 1 rail carriers, while the requirement would be eliminated for smaller class 1 rail carriers. Smaller class 1 rail carriers would instead be required to report a new smaller suite of traffic data.

Rationale: The expansion of the service and performance indicators represents a significant improvement, which would make the data more relevant, understandable, and useful to data users, while reducing the reporting burden for smaller carriers. The adjustments to the waybill-reporting requirements will help ensure that the data continues to meet its primary purpose of supporting the long-haul interswitching (LHI) measure, while eliminating unnecessary burden by removing this requirement from carriers that are not likely to be subject to LHI orders. New traffic reporting requirements for smaller class 1 rail carriers would ensure that Transport Canada (TC) continues to have access to important information about their Canadian operations.

The estimated total cost of the proposed amendments is $452,408 between 2022 and 2031 (present value in 2020 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year of 2021 at a 7% discount rate). Railway companies would bear these costs from updating internal information technology (IT) systems to query additional data, the maintenance and verification of new data, and the purchase of additional IT resources (e.g. software, equipment).

Overall, the proposed amendments would result in a net cost of $452,408 over the 10-year period.

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed amendments would not impact small businesses. The one-for-one rule applies, as there is incremental change in administrative burden on businesses. It is estimated that the annualized administrative costs would be $13,105, or $3,276 per business.

Issues

In 2018, the Transportation Modernization Act (TMA) introduced new data reporting requirements for six major rail carriers identified as class 1 rail carriers:

These requirements were incorporated on a transitional (temporary) basis and include the collection of detailed waybill data (which is kept confidential), and service and performance information (which is published on a weekly basis).

While the transitional reporting requirements significantly enhanced transparency into the operation of the freight rail network, further enhancements are necessary. As a result, TC has been working to develop a regulatory proposal that would replace the transitional provisions with regulatory amendments to the TIR. The transitional provisions in the TMA would expire upon the coming into force of the regulatory amendments to the TIR.

Transitional service and performance information

The transitional requirements for the collection of the service and performance information were incorporated by reference from requirements that are in place in the United States (U.S.). Incorporating these requirements by reference enabled the data to be available quickly, but meant that the requirements were not fully tailored to the Canadian context. They were also not subject to the kind of extensive stakeholder consultation that is part of the regulatory process. As such, the transitional requirements need to be refined and expanded upon to provide a more robust and transparent picture of rail service and performance in Canada to better meet the needs of data users (for example rail shippers, terminal operators, port authorities, and trade associations), while balancing the benefits and burdens of reporting.

The proposed regulatory amendments would address some of the shortcomings of the transitional reporting requirements. For example, the transitional indicators do not measure activity with an end-to-end perspective and lack information on performance at destination. Additionally, in some cases, the transitional indicators lack details that would make the information relevant to data users. For example, many of the indicators lack specific geographic or commodity details that would provide data users with a view of rail performance in the regions and sectors that are relevant to them, as opposed to a more general, national level view. Further, many of the indicators provide information only on select unit train types (trains comprised entirely of one commodity). This information is of limited value to shippers whose traffic moves in manifest trains (trains carrying multiple commodities).

Some of the transitional indicators enable railways to set their own methodologies, which creates challenges for data users in understanding the reported data and limits the comparability of the information between railways. For example, when reporting “terminal dwell” for each of the railway’s top 10 terminals, there is no consistent methodology for defining the terminal, nor on the method of calculating the dwell time, such as what traffic is or is not to be included.

The transitional reporting requirements also apply equally to all six class 1 rail carriers, in spite of the differences in geographic scope of their networks and volumes carried in Canada. This has raised concerns about imbalances between the benefits and burdens of reporting, particularly for carriers with a smaller Canadian presence. Adjustments are therefore required to better align the requirements with the scope of carriers’ Canadian operations.

Transitional waybill (rate) data

Under the transitional requirements, railways are required to collect and submit waybill data, which supports the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) in calculating LHI rates. LHI is a competitive access measure introduced in the TMA to enable shippers with access to only one rail carrier to access a connecting carrier, at the nearest interchange, at a rate set by the Agency. The Agency requires detailed waybill data in order to set those rates, which must be based on rates charged for comparable traffic.

The transitional waybill data includes fields, such as the shipper’s name, rate, railcar owner, identifying marks, Standard Transportation Commodity Code, as well as origin and destination. While the data collected is largely adequate to support the Agency in establishing LHI rates, minor adjustments are necessary to ensure that all the required data is available to support the LHI mechanism.

Moreover, given the scope of the smaller class 1 rail carriers’ operations in Canada, the full suite of waybill data currently required under section 76 of the TMA is not necessary, as it may have limited value for LHI purposes. Therefore, adjustments are required to improve the alignment of the reporting requirements with the purpose and utility of the information, while still ensuring that TC has the information it needs to support its own analysis, including in support of network monitoring and policy development.

Background

The Canadian freight rail sector

Canada’s freight rail transportation sector specializes in moving heavy, bulk commodities and containerized cargo over long distances, mainly to and from the United States, and to coastal ports for shipping to international markets. Canada has two dominant freight railways, CN and CP, which account for more than 95% of Canada’s annual revenue tonne-kilometres and 80% of its tracks. Some U.S.-based carriers also operate in Canada, such as BNSF and CSX. BNSF’s service to Canada’s Pacific Gateway gives Vancouver the unique advantage of being the only port on the North American West Coast served by three of North America’s largest railroads.

Many Canadian shippers are heavily reliant on rail, with limited cost-effective alternative modes of transportation, and many shippers have direct access to only one rail carrier. Strong concentration in the rail sector does not always create the kind of competitive market pressure that would typically drive efficient outcomes in terms of service volume, quality, pricing, and information sharing. A shortage of competitive market pressures also limits the amount of data shared by carriers on a voluntary basis. To address situations where competition and market forces alone are not sufficient to drive these outcomes, the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) contains a range of rate, service, and competitive access remedies, administered by the Agency, which provide recourse to shippers.

Despite the voluntary reporting of some weekly service information for carriers’ North American networks, and the transitional suite of service and performance indicators, significant gaps still exist for the public reporting on the performance of Canadian freight rail networks. While railways do provide information to shippers to track their own shipments, shippers have limited information about the network as a whole, and for their commodities or regions of interest. Being confidential in nature, much of the data shippers receive regarding their own shipments cannot be discussed or shared publicly, limiting its potential uses. While some private sector-led collaborations to share information among supply chain partners are helping to bridge these gaps, such initiatives are often confidential to the participants, limited in geographic or sector/commodity scope, and do not provide a broader view of overall rail service and performance across the country.

The Transportation Modernization Act

The TMA became law on May 23, 2018, and introduced several measures to enhance transparency, competitiveness, and investment in the freight rail system, for the benefit of all rail users. Among those measures, the TMA introduced a set of new regulatory authorities and temporary transitional reporting provisions.

New regulatory authorities

The TMA introduced new regulatory authorities in the CTA to provide for the collection of two types of data from class 1 rail carriers:

Temporary transitional reporting provisions

In addition to new regulatory authorities, the TMA introduced transitional reporting requirements to collect both service and performance information and waybill data from the six class 1 rail carriers. The introduction of the temporary transitional reporting provisions ensured that the data would be reported as soon as possible. TC began receiving waybill data on June 30, 2018. This data includes information on every revenue-generating car moved by the six carriers on their Canadian networks. The first weekly report of the service and performance metrics was published on the Canadian Centre on Transportation Data’s Transportation Data and Information Hub (the Hub) on December 10, 2018. Shortly after the TMA entered into force, TC began a process to explore options for further refining the information being collected, via amendments to the TIR.

Incorporated by reference from the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, including details regarding equipment type, commodity, and geography, the eight transitional service and performance metrics are the following:

Objective

Service and performance information

The objective of this proposal is to allow data users, particularly supply chain partners and government, to better understand the performance of Canada’s freight rail sector, and to inform conversations about opportunities for growth and improvement. As described above, limited competition in Canada’s rail sector may impact the efficiency and effectiveness of rail service and performance. The proposed suite of indicators and accompanying details will increase transparency into rail service and performance, enabling discussions on identifying and addressing challenges facing rail-based supply chains, encouraging greater accountability, and providing valuable information for assessing whether the system is meeting the needs of the Canadian economy.

Waybill data reporting in support of long-haul interswitching

The primary purpose of the proposed waybill data is to ensure that the Agency has the information necessary to administer the LHI measure in a timely manner. Additionally, because it would provide car-level, shipper, revenue, and train information, the proposed waybill information would assist TC to better understand rail traffic flows, network activity and rate trends, all of which would support policy development, help inform assessments of the effectiveness of existing policies and legislative provisions, and help to assess risks and gaps.

Description

The TMA’s transitional reporting requirements apply to the six previously named class 1 rail carriers and require these carriers to submit this information to the Minister of Transport.

The proposed reporting requirements include service and performance indicators, waybill data, and traffic data. After careful consideration and examination, including experience with the information reported pursuant to the transitional requirements, the proposed regulatory amendments to the TIR would differentiate the reporting requirements based on the scope and nature of a carrier’s Canadian operations. This approach would better account for both the value of the data and the burden of reporting it.

Service and performance indicators

In order to provide a more meaningful and complete picture of rail performance to data users, the proposed indicators focus on performance through an end-to-end view of the rail system, with relevant geographic, commodity, and car-type details. The data would need to be reported on a weekly basis (as is the case for the existing transitional requirements). Overall, the proposed indicators would result in over 20 times more data points than the existing transitional provisions. The proposed indicators are organized into four categories, focusing on different aspects of a rail movement.

1. First mile performance: The indicators in this category would provide information about the timely movement of loaded cars from origin. Two indicators are proposed:

2. En route performance: The indicators in this category would help identify whether loaded and empty railcars are moving en route to destination in a timely manner. Five indicators are proposed:

3. Last mile performance: The indicators in this category would provide information about the timely placement of loaded railcars at destination and would help identify whether loaded traffic encounters delays in the very last stages of a movement. Three indicators are proposed:

4. Asset: The indicators in this category would provide information on rail assets and utilization, which would create a greater understanding of the fluidity and timeliness of service in the rail network. Five indicators are proposed:

With the exception of the number of train operating employees, all of the indicators would be measured per car (or per locomotive), ensuring a comprehensive view of the rail network. Most indicators would be broken down by province with accompanying commodity or car type details, to provide information that is more specific. Under the current transitional requirements, the data is reported on a weekly basis and is submitted five days following the end of the reporting week. The proposed regulatory amendments maintain the weekly reporting frequency, but submission of the data would be required no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the Wednesday following the week to which the information relates (i.e. three days following the end of the reporting week). This would enable the publication of the data only five days after the end of the reporting week, instead of seven (under the current framework), which would increase its relevance to data users. Better data and early identification of changes to rail performance would help network users, particularly shippers, to make more informed decisions in a timelier manner.

The proposed regulatory amendments would tailor the reporting requirements according to the size, scope, and nature of each reporting carrier’s operations in Canada, to enable an appropriate balance between the burden and benefit of reporting. Class 1 rail carriers that also meet the revenue threshold for their Canadian operations to be considered a class I rail carrier under the TIR would be required to report on the full suite of indicators and their granularity details (including geography, commodity, and car type). Given that class I carriers account for the vast majority of Canada’s rail infrastructure and rail movements, understanding their performance is integral to understanding the performance of the Canadian transportation system and its impacts on the broader economy. This proposal therefore seeks to optimize visibility into these carriers’ service and performance, with due consideration to minimizing reporting burden and protecting commercially sensitive information. In order to limit the reporting burden for these carriers, they have been consulted on the development of the indicators, which rely, to the extent possible, on the use of automatically generated car location message data, and attempt to mimic the approaches these carriers use to report similar metrics elsewhere (including for their U.S. operations).

Based on the scale of its Canadian operations, BNSF would only be required to report on a subset of the indicators, with fewer details related to geography, car type, and commodity. Understanding BNSF’s performance remains important for data users, particularly as BNSF offers Canadian shippers access to markets in the U.S. through the busy Vancouver area, as well as through Manitoba. Recognizing BNSF’s smaller Canadian footprint, the proposed Regulations would limit BNSF’s reporting to indicators that provide helpful information about its service and performance, but that do not expose information which could be used to identify individual shippers.

Therefore, BNSF would be required to report the following reduced suite of indicators:

Class rail 1 carriers that are neither Class I rail carriers under the TIR nor BNSF would not be required to report any service and performance indicators. These carriers’ operations in Canada are limited in scope and volume, and the carriers do not operate in areas where congestion has historically challenged the performance of Canada’s rail network. As a result, it is less likely that weekly public service and performance metrics would significantly serve the public’s interests.

Waybill information

The proposed amendments would put in place different reporting requirements for different class 1 rail carriers, based on their revenues in Canada.

Detailed waybill data is required from carriers that are class 1 rail carriers under the CTA and class I rail carriers under the TIR, in order to support the LHI remedy.

The proposed amendments would maintain the requirement to report waybill fields, on a monthly basis, to maintain support for LHI and internal TC analysis, but would add six new reporting fields (four of which are already being reported voluntarily):

Traffic information

The proposed regulatory amendments include a new reporting requirement that would apply to class 1 rail carriers under the CTA that are considered to be class II carriers under the TIR and have positive revenues in Canada.

These carriers are not likely to have LHI orders applied against them, due to the limited scope of their Canadian operations, and so collecting the full suite of waybill information is not required. However, it is important that TC continue to have access to some information on these carriers’ Canadian operations, in order to continue to inform policy development and analysis.

So, instead of reporting the full suite of detailed waybill data, these carriers would be required to report a smaller set of traffic data, aggregated to a monthly basis, that is similar to the current reporting requirements for class I railways under subsection 10(2) of the TIR. This would include significantly less detail than the waybill data. For example, while the traffic data would include information about mileage, tonnage, commodity, origin, destination, etc., it would not include information such as revenues, rebates and incentives, shipper name, car ownership, car and train ID, and the time the movement begins and ends, which are all included in the waybill reporting. In addition, instead of being reported on a per car basis, the traffic information would be aggregated for all movements sharing the same characteristics occurring in a given month. It would therefore provide a high-level overview of a carrier’s traffic, whereas the waybill data includes extensive details on the movement of each individual car.

This proposed approach would better align reporting requirements with the expected use of the data. It would represent a significant reduction in the level of detail that would be reported by the impacted carriers as compared to requiring the full car-level waybill data, which is appropriate given that data is not required from these carriers in support of LHI, but still provides important information about their Canadian operations.

Regulatory development

Consultation

In the spring of 2019, TC launched public consultations. A detailed discussion paper and questionnaire were shared with stakeholders, including railways, shippers, shipper associations, provincial governments, and other supply chain members. TC held meetings with interested parties and published consultation information on the Let’s Talk Transportation website, inviting public feedback. In all, TC received 38 responses to the questionnaire.

TC subsequently conducted technical consultations with over 30 organizations in the winter and spring of 2020 to better understand their needs and discuss a range of technical issues relating to reporting on railway service and performance.

Much of the feedback received during these first phases of consultations focused on the public facing service and performance information.

From a railway perspective, the need to protect any potentially commercially sensitive information was a common theme, especially for questions that raised the potential of adding greater commodity or geographic granularity. In addition, railways raised the concern that the transitional requirements were already adequate for their purposes, and so the burden of amending the reporting requirements would be greater than the benefits.

For most other stakeholders, the feedback varied significantly based on supply chain role, industry, etc. However, while it was clear that different sectors have different needs and preoccupations, which reflect differences in their operations and their methods of interaction with the railways, some key similarities emerged. These similarities included:

With respect to the waybill data, feedback has generally been more limited. Some railways argued that, due to their limited operations in Canada, they should not be required to submit this data, as it would not be needed for LHI rate purposes and would be of limited utility. They suggested that due to their limited Canadian footprint, the administrative burden of reporting would outweigh the value of the data.

Other respondents stressed that every class 1 rail carrier operating in Canada should be required to provide waybill information regardless of the extent of their business operations in Canada. TC received a number of comments from non-railway stakeholders about the importance of using the data to further public transparency.

Consultations on preliminary proposal

In the fall of 2020, TC consulted again with railways, with a specific view to ensuring the feasibility of the proposed reporting requirements.

In December of 2020, TC launched a further round of broad public consultations, sharing its detailed proposal with stakeholders, soliciting written feedback and offering in-person meetings to discuss the proposal. This consultation period closed on February 26, 2021. The feedback received followed similar themes to the consultations on the discussion paper in 2019.

Most non-railway respondents found the proposal to be a significant improvement on the transitional indicators and were supportive of the objectives. At the same time, they noted room for improvement in several areas, which include increasing the geographic and commodity details, including additional indicators, and clarifying the methodologies. In response to some of these requests, TC has added a service and performance indicator requiring railways to report on the number of conductors and locomotive engineers, given the key role that crew availability can play in the quality of service provided by railways.

While some respondents stated comfort with their own data possibly being exposed by very detailed reporting, others raised concerns that some indicators could expose traffic volumes of individual shippers and proposed some solutions for addressing those concerns. TC has gone to significant lengths to address these concerns. TC has used the waybill data already being reported to assess whether there are certain combinations of geography and commodity that could reveal information that pertains to only one or two shippers. Various adjustments to the service and performance indicators have been made to address these concerns, including eliminating the counts of cars included in some indicators.

Non-railways also consistently raised concerns over the lack of an audit and verification regime. While TC understands the desire of some stakeholders to have a mechanism for the audit and verification of the reported data, no such regime is under development at this time. The proposed service and performance indicators include detailed methodologies for calculating the indicators, which carriers will be required by law to follow. TC will continue to work proactively with railways to clarify and correct any discrepancies or uncertainties that may be observed in the data before it is posted publicly, similar to the internal validation process that is done for the transitional metrics. Moreover, it remains an offence to knowingly provide false or misleading information to the Minister or to any person acting on behalf of the Minister in connection with any matter under the CTA.

Some stakeholders continued to suggest that the indicators also include key benchmarks or performance standards, which could be used to trigger government intervention. While TC understands this perspective, it is not TC’s role to establish these kinds of benchmarks or performance standards. Given the variability of commercial contracts between shippers and railways, setting such standards in a regulatory environment in the absence of information about the commitments contained in those contracts would be inappropriate. Moreover, only the Agency may determine whether a railway is meeting its service obligations, and it does so based on a range of factors, in the context of a formal investigation.

Carriers raised concerns over what they perceive to be an unnecessary level of burden associated with the proposal, the overall trend of increasing reporting requirements, the inconsistency with information they report elsewhere, the lack of information on performance of other members of the supply chain, concerns relating to confidentiality (revealing information about individual shippers), and the fairness of having different reporting requirements for different class 1 rail carriers.

TC continues to take such concerns seriously and has made a number of adjustments to the proposal following the winter 2020–2021 consultations. This includes efforts to better align the methodologies for the service and performance indicators with existing operations and reporting, in order to reduce reporting burden. Another significant reduction to the reporting burden has been achieved by eliminating a proposed requirement for class 1 rail carriers that are also class I rail carriers under the TIR to report confidential details about the composition of every train moving on its mainline from the proposal. The removal of this requirement has been made possible because of ongoing efforts by TC to acquire similar non-regulatory data from third parties that would meet the requirements. The proposed regulatory amendments also further reduce the number of service and performance indicators that would apply to BNSF. With respect to confidentiality, the reporting requirements have been adjusted to eliminate the reporting of sensitive information about individual shipper volumes. It should also be noted that the regulatory authority is specifically designed to enable the publication of the data by railway to improve transparency and better assess the service being provided by railways.

TC has also consulted with the Agency in the development of this proposal. They were generally supportive of efforts to collect more detailed service and performance information, and also requested that the waybill reporting include information to help identify the origin and destination facility in cases where multiple facilities share station codes.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposal is likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and no modern treaty obligations were identified.

Instrument choice

The transitional requirements under the TMA borrowed the approach of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB). This was practical in the short term and enabled the implementation of reporting more quickly, but it also left room for improvement. In order to strengthen the service and performance information, there is a need to adjust these requirements to provide more detailed information that is more meaningful for Canadian data users. The level of detailed public reporting necessary to support meaningful conversations on railway service and performance could not be achieved through voluntary reporting.

The transitional provisions in the TMA were developed in such a way that they would expire upon the coming into force of the proposed regulatory amendments. A regulatory approach to updating the reporting requirements thereby ensures that the transitional reporting requirements will cease to exist when the regulatory requirements enter into force, avoiding duplicative reporting requirements.

Regulatory analysis

It is anticipated that the proposed regulatory amendments would enable TC to collect service and performance information, waybill data, and traffic data from four class 1 rail carriers operating in Canada: CN, CP, BNSF, and CSX. While these railway companies have already been reporting certain data to TC because of the transitional reporting requirements prescribed in the TMA, the proposed regulatory amendments would require them to report modified information.

Railways would bear the costs related to updating internal IT systems to query additional data, the maintenance and verification of new data, and the purchase of additional IT resources (e.g. software, equipment). The proposed regulatory amendments would result in total incremental costs of $452,408 (present value in 2020 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2021 at a 7% discount rate) between 2022 and 2031. Supply chain partners and the Government of Canada would benefit from more timely and comprehensive reporting to better understand the performance of Canada’s freight rail sector.

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits associated with the proposed amendments are assessed based on a comparison of the baseline scenario with the regulatory scenario, in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed regulatory amendments to the TIR. The regulatory scenario provides information on the expected outcomes of the proposed regulatory amendments. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the analysis.

The average hourly wage rate for a computer and information systems professional, $49.68footnote 1 (including the associated overhead rate of 25%), was used to calculate the costs associated with updating the internal IT system in the first year of the analysis (2022). The average hourly wage rate for a Canadian employee, $36.89footnote 2 (including the associated overhead rate of 25%), was used to calculate costs associated with maintaining and verifying reported data on an ongoing basis between 2023 and 2031. The estimated number of incremental hours required to update internal IT systems and maintain and verify data was provided by railway stakeholders during consultation sessions.

This analysis estimates the impact of the proposed regulatory amendments over a 10-year analytical period from 2022 to 2031, with the year 2022 being when the amendments are expected to be registered and the year 2023 being when the amendments are expected to come into force. Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year 2021 at a 7% discount rate for the 10-year analytical period.

Affected stakeholders

Based on their current revenues and operations within Canada, it is anticipated that the proposed regulatory amendments would impact four class 1 rail carriers (CN, CP, BNSF and CSX),footnote 3 along with supply chain users and the Government of Canada.

Railway companies

Among the four affected railway companies, CN and CP are the two leading freight rail companies in Canada. Of the total Canadian rail transport industry revenues, CN accounts for over 50% and CP accounts for 35%. CN and CP employ approximately 24 000 and 12 200 people, respectively. Together, CN and CP represent more than 95% of Canada’s annual rail tonne-kilometres, more than 75% of the industry’s tracks, and 75% of overall tonnage carried by the rail sector. BNSF and CSX Canadian operations are more limited. All these railway companies are considered large businesses.

Supply chain users

Supply chain partners, such as shippers, terminal operators, and ports, would benefit from timelier and more detailed reporting on freight rail movements in Canada. For example, high provincial origin dwell times may influence a shipper’s decision regarding the route and timing for future shipments, and the data could be used as part of such a discussion with the shipper’s serving rail carrier. Furthermore, terminal dwell information may be used by the port or marine terminal operators to better understand rail activity in the area and to and from their facilities, as well as information about dwell times per commodity and car type, including intermodal containers, and accompanying car and container counts. Compared to the transitional suite of indicators, the proposed Regulations would provide this type of information to supply chain users with increased detail and clearer methodologies, and in a timelier way.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Under the baseline scenario, CN, CP, BNSF, CSX, NS, and UP are required to report several service and performance indicators and waybill data in accordance with the TMA. Relating to waybill reporting, CN and CP voluntarily report on four of the six new fields outlined in the proposed regulatory amendments. Because NS and UP do not move revenue traffic in Canada, they do not report service and performance indicators.

Under the regulatory scenario, CN and CP, as class 1 rail carriers that are also class I rail carriers under the TIR, would continue to report the transitional waybill fields on a monthly basis, along with two additional fields. They would also be required to provide weekly reports on a new set of service and performance indicators outlined in the amended TIR. BNSF would report a reduced suite of service and performance indicators, reflecting their significantly smaller scope of Canadian operations. In addition, BNSF and CSX would no longer need to report waybill data on a monthly basis; instead, as class 1 rail carriers that are also class II rail carriers under the TIR with positive revenues in Canada, they would both report a reduced suite of aggregated traffic data on a monthly basis. There are no incremental impacts to NS and UP as they indicate they do not have positive revenues in Canada; therefore, they would not report these new data (however, in the event that they do have revenue traffic in Canada, they would be required to report).

In order to improve feasibility, the proposed reporting requirements would come into force 90 days (three months) following the publication of the final Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This would allow railways to develop the suite of indicators, test run the new reporting requirements, and ensure quality control of the data.

Benefits and costs

Benefits

Service and performance information

This proposal would replace the transitional indicators with a more expansive and detailed suite of service and performance indicators. Public reporting — particularly with commodity and geography details, an “end-to-end” approach, and based on clear and consistent methodologies — would significantly enhance transparency in Canada’s freight rail sector, enabling informed discussions regarding the performance of the rail network, increasing accountability, and adding pressure for improved outcomes by all supply chain partners. In addition, the proposed end-to-end approach, supported by contextual details about the fleet of rail equipment and crew, would make the indicators more understandable, useful, and meaningful to stakeholders than the transitional metrics, which lack a coherent structure and clear linkages across indicators to fully understand what is happening in the network.

While the transitional reporting requirements were an important step towards improved transparency, the proposed regulatory amendments to the TIR would refine and expand that suite of data to provide a more robust and detailed picture of rail service and performance across Canada and impose clear methodologies. The proposed amendments would supplement the information that supply chain members are able to provide about their specific experiences, and better inform conversations among supply chain partners, such as railways and their shipper customers. For example, enhanced with commodity and geographic details, the proposed indicators could enable shippers to better understand the service they receive compared to their peer groups and even allow individual shippers to assess whether the issues they are facing are more unique to them, thereby informing discussions with railways about how to improve service outcomes. Information about crew availability would provide a new level of insight into railway staffing decisions, and how those decisions are impacting performance. The service and performance data would not only provide valuable information about rail performance, but also the broader health of rail-based supply chains, and help identify the nature of emerging issues, including whether they are regional, specific to a sector or car type, seasonal, etc. The data would also better inform supply chain performance discussions between shippers, railways, other supply chain partners, and government, including at forums, such as the TC-led Commodity Supply Chain Table, which can in turn help identify solutions to improve the health of rail-based supply chains.

Railways in Canada have an obligation to provide adequate and suitable accommodation for the movement of traffic, and the Agency can investigate service issues either by application or on its own motion. The indicators might be used by shippers or the Agency to inform decisions on whether to pursue investigations on the level of service. However, the indicators themselves will not constitute and cannot be considered proof of a service failure, nor can they replace the role of the Agency in assessing, on a case-by-case basis, whether the railway company is fulfilling its service obligations.

The economic literature suggests that the willingness to pay for data within an open market is an indication of its value. In Canada, there are a few third-party stakeholders that provide a range of transportation data on a subscription basis, including Statistics Canada, the Conference Board of Canada and Railinc Corporation. The annual subscription fees vary depending on the data type, availability and granularity.footnote 4 For example, the Conference Board of Canada sells data in the form of annual reports and individual series, one of which is a five-year economic forecast comprising nine sectors within the national economy. The annual subscription fee for this report, updated quarterly, is approximately $6,555, while each individual series costs approximately $54.90.footnote 5

Another example is the Ag Transport Coalition’s Railway Performance Measurement Program, which is jointly funded by industry and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and which provides publicly reported rail performance information relating to the movement of grain in Western Canada. This grain-exclusive data is of a similar nature to the type of information that would be reported under this proposal, but also includes additional metrics that are not required by the proposed amendments (e.g. order fulfillment). AAFC bears a cost of $1,479,396 for this program, which covers the period from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023. This contribution covers up to 50% of the total program costs, which include the acquisition of raw data, the development of service indicators and administrative costs.

Although TC is unable to monetize the benefits associated with the proposal due to a lack of information, the above-mentioned examples, particularly the similar program jointly funded by AAFC and industry, strongly suggest that the data and indicators that would be reported have considerable value to supply chain users, who would be willing to pay for such information to improve their business performance. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that, overall, the proposal would result in more benefits than costs to Canadian society.

Waybill data

Continuing to collect the LHI data from CN and CP would ensure the ongoing, effective support of the LHI measure, which provides shippers an opportunity to access an alternate rail carrier. The minor adjustments to this requirement would help ensure that the Agency is able to process LHI applications in a timely manner in accordance with the requirements of the CTA. This, in turn, helps to ensure that rail shippers have the option to use that competitive access remedy when faced with limited competitive options. The continued collection of this data would also ensure that TC continues to have access to this detailed information to support analysis and ensure that future decision making in relation to the freight rail system is informed by the best possible information. This, in turn, would help to ensure that policies are well founded and appropriately designed to address any issues that are identified, in order to further strengthen Canada’s freight rail network for the benefit of rail users and the Canadian economy.

Traffic data

The introduction of new traffic reporting requirements for smaller class 1 rail carriers would ensure TC continues to have access to information about these carriers’ operations, to support analysis and ensure that future decision making in relation to the freight rail system is informed by quality information. This would help to ensure that policies are well founded and appropriately designed to address any issues that are identified, in order to further strengthen Canada’s freight rail network for the benefit of rail users and the Canadian economy.

Costs

During consultations, carriers were asked to identify specific costs associated with the proposal. Only one carrier provided concrete estimates related to the expected time required to update or develop IT systems and the incremental time required to maintain and verify new data, which helped to shape some of the assumptions provided in the costing estimates.

Service and performance information

The proposed regulatory amendments would require CN and CP to report new data related to service and performance on a weekly basis. As a result, CN and CP would need to update their existing IT systems to include additional reporting. These carriers may need to retrofit existing systems while developing a number of new IT systems or templates that correspond to their existing systems in order to comply with the new data reporting requirements. CN and CP would also be subject to possible adjustments to some service and performance indicators in subsequent years (for example should their list of top 10 terminals change), which is assumed, on average, to take the same amount of time every year. It is estimated that CN and CP would each require 234 daysfootnote 6 of effort to complete the IT update in 2022, 53 days of effort per year to maintain and verify reported data starting in 2023, of which 9 days of effort per year are allocated to review and, if needed, adjust certain reported service and performance indicators starting in 2023. The railways currently have systems in place to generate and collect the raw data (e.g. recording the movements of cars on their networks) that is necessary to report on these indicators, but significant work would be necessary to develop the programming logic to take that raw data and use it to calculate the indicators in accordance with the prescribed methodologies and details. Once that programming logic is developed, it can then be expected that the week-to-week burden would be relatively low; however, the initial setup is expected to be intensive. Costs to CN and CP are estimated to be $340,186, of which $162,970 would be a one-time cost associated with updating IT systems to be assumed in 2022; $146,894 would be associated with maintaining and verifying data between 2023 and 2031; and $30,322 would be associated with making certain metric adjustments between 2023 and 2031.

Similarly, the proposed regulatory amendments would require BNSF to report a subset of what CN and CP would be required to report: 4 out of 15 service and performance indicators, 2 of which are already reported under the transitional requirements. However, under the proposed regulatory amendments, the methodologies, specific car types and commodity types to be reported would be different. Based on their current operations, it is anticipated that BNSF would only be required to report 2 terminals under the proposed terminal dwell metric, as opposed to 10 for CN and CP. Therefore, BNSF would need to update its IT systems to query data for these additional reporting elements. It is estimated that BNSF would require 51 days of effort to complete the IT update in 2022 and 6 days of effort per year to maintain and verify reported data starting in 2023. Costs to BNSF are estimated to be $27,530, of which $17,760 would be a one-time cost associated with updating IT systems to be assumed in 2022, and $9,770 would be associated with maintaining and verifying data between 2023 and 2031.

Total costs related to service and performance data are estimated to be $355,247 over the analytical period, of which $170,283 would be associated with initial IT upgrades, $154,642 would be associated with maintaining and verifying additional data, and $30,322 would be associated with certain metric adjustments.

Waybill data

The proposed regulatory amendments would require CN and CP to report six new waybill data fields, four of which have been voluntarily reported since 2018. It is estimated that CN and CP would require 15 days of effort to complete the IT update in 2022, and 5 days of effort per year to maintain and verify reported data starting in 2023. Total costs are estimated to be $27,292, of which $10,447 would be a one-time cost associated with updating IT systems to be assumed in 2022, and $16,845 would be associated with maintaining and verifying data between 2023 and 2031.

Traffic data

The proposed regulatory amendments would require BNSF and CSX to report traffic data, which are a reduced and more aggregated form of the waybill data currently reported under the transitional requirements. Therefore, it is estimated that each railway company would only need to make adjustments to their IT system reporting measures, which is estimated to require five days of effort per stakeholder in 2022, with an estimated total cost of $3,482. Note that BNSF and CSX would not carry additional costs related to maintaining and verifying data as they are currently doing this under the reported waybill data (the baseline scenario).

Additional IT resources

In addition to the labour costs of updating IT systems, railway companies are expected to purchase additional IT resources, such as servers, processors, and other related materials, in 2022. During targeted consultations, one carrier specifically identified that additional IT resources were needed as a result of the proposed amendments. Some proposed definitions and reporting requirements do not match carriers’ current reporting methods; therefore, they would need to develop new systems/templates operating in parallel with existing systems. Some of the metrics will require days of programming and testing, while others will take weeks and a team of multiple subject matter experts. Although these costs are not calculated in IT costs, incremental resources will be required to do this. It was estimated that the purchase of additional IT resources would cost both CN and CP $17,973 each, and both BNSF and CSX $8,986 each. As a result, the total estimated costs would be $53,918 to be carried in 2022.

Cost-benefit statement

Table: Monetized costs (thousands)
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost 2022 Other relevant years 2031 Total
(present value)		 Annualized value
Railway companies IT resources $53.92 $0 $0 $53.92 $7.68
Service and performance information $180.73 $21.42 $15.61 $367.72 $52.35
Waybill data $10.45 $1.93 $1.41 $27.29 $3.89
Traffic data $3.48 $0 $0 $3.48 $0.50
All stakeholders Total costs $248.58 $23.35 $17.02 $452.41 $64.42

Small business lens

An analysis conducted under the small business lens concluded that the proposed Regulations would not have any impacts on small businesses. None of the impacted railway companies are considered a small business.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies as there is an incremental increase in the administrative burden on business, and the amendments are considered an “IN” under the rule. Affected stakeholders would be required to report new or improved data related to service and performance, waybill and traffic. Although it is expected that the reported data would be queried automatically through car location messages or other existing railway databases, railway stakeholders would need to devote additional time to maintain and verify reported data on a yearly basis.

Using data and assumptions previously presented, and the methodology prescribed in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, it is estimated that the annualized administrative costs would be $13,105, or $3,276 per business (of the four impacted businesses) [present value in 2012 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a 7% discount rate] for the 10-year period.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed amendments are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum.

Every jurisdiction has different requirements for railway data reporting. In the United States, rail carriers terminating 4 500 or more revenue carloads annually must provide a stratified sample of carload waybills for all their U.S. rail traffic. However, the sample approach is not appropriate for the Canadian context, where waybill details for all movements are required in order to support the LHI measure.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), a preliminary analysis was completed, which concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

The proposed service and performance reporting requirements are intended to help shippers understand how well their goods are moving in relation to other goods moving on the rail network. Women are under-represented in the field of railways and their main client industries (such as agriculture, forestry, and mining). According to Statistics Canada, the employment characteristics of the transportation industry as a whole skew towards men (77% of employees in that industry in 2020 [Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0023-01 Labour force characteristics by industry, annual]).

The proposed amendments are likely to entail the work of professionals in data management and information technology; male employees comprised 76% of these fields in 2020 (Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0296-01 Labour force characteristics by occupation, monthly, unadjusted for seasonality). It is worth noting that women only make up 24% of these fields, and 23% of the transportation sector as a whole. Although the proposal would not directly address the gender disparity in the industry, the proposal is not expected to have any differential impacts on the basis of gender or other identity factors.

During consultations, stakeholders were asked to identify whether any groups might be disproportionately affected by the proposal. About 30% of respondents indicated that, in rural and remote areas, telecommunications infrastructure is sparse, and therefore, Internet access tends to be sporadic. Accessing the data may be difficult for shippers located in those areas. The proposed amendments do not address the Internet coverage issues experienced by data users in rural areas as these issues are beyond the scope of the proposed Regulations. Otherwise, the railways, most shippers, and most other supply chain members are expected to have access to the data — at least at their corporate offices, which tend to be located in major census metropolitan areas.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The requirements would enter into force 90 days after the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. TC is currently aiming to have the requirements come into force in 2023. Stakeholders had previously been consulted on a longer, 180-day implementation time frame. Some non-railway stakeholders noted that a shorter time frame would be preferable, while railways generally commented that the 180-day time frame may be difficult, though achievable, but that a full year would be preferable.

Following a challenging winter for rail service in 2021–2022, where many shippers raised concerns about the need for improved service and performance information, TC is of the view that it is imperative to have the enhanced indicators available to stakeholders as early as is practicable to increase transparency and accountability.

Despite the feedback from railways on the 180-day time frame, TC believes the 90-day time frame is realistic and achievable. It would strike an appropriate balance between the interests of shippers and the concerns around feasibility for rail carriers. While the work for rail carriers would involve updating existing systems and/or creating new systems to comply with the new requirements, the impacted railways already have systems in place to generate and collect the raw data that is necessary to develop the indicators. They have also been consulted extensively to ensure the feasibility of the new requirements, and to align methodologies with existing practices wherever possible. Moreover, railways have in the past proven capable of complying with new reporting requirements within a limited implementation time frame. For example, in 2018, class 1 rail carriers had less than 40 days following royal assent of the TMA to provide the first report of waybill data. Similarly, in 2014, when amendments to the TIR were made to require CN and CP to report car cycle data, order fulfillment, traffic data, and car fleet data, those requirements entered into force upon registration. In both cases, railways were able to comply with the requirements with no significant issues.

Compliance and enforcement

The requirements include detailed methodologies for calculating the indicators, which carriers will be required by law to follow. TC will continue to work proactively with railways to clarify and correct any discrepancies or uncertainties that may be observed in the data before it is posted publicly, similar to the internal validation process that is done for the transitional metrics to review for anomalous or missing values, etc. Moreover, it remains an offence under the CTA to knowingly provide false or misleading information to the Minister or to any person acting on behalf of the Minister in connection with any matter under the CTA. A rail company that contravenes the CTA or regulations made under it could be subject to a fine of up to $25,000. Contraventions of the waybill or service and performance reporting requirements could also result in administrative monetary penalties of up to $25,000.

Contact

Joel Dei
Director Rail Policy Analysis and Legislative Initiatives
Surface Transportation Policy
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: TC.freightrail-fretferroviaire.TC@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsections 50(1)footnote a and (1.01)footnote b of the Canada Transportation Act footnote c, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Transportation Information Regulations (Freight Rail Data).

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Joel Dei, Director of Rail Policy Analysis and Legislative Initiatives, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 27th Floor, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (tel.: 613‑291‑8839; email: joel.dei@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, May 2, 2022

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Transportation Information Regulations (Freight Rail Data)

Amendments

1 The Transportation Information Regulations footnote 7 are amended by adding the following after section 50:

PART XIII

Class 1 Rail Carriers

Interpretation

51 The following definitions apply in this Part.

class 1 rail carrier
has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Act. (transporteur ferroviaire de catégorie 1)
class I rail carrier
has the same meaning as in section 8. (transporteur ferroviaire de catégorie I)
class II rail carrier
has the same meaning as in section 8. (transporteur ferroviaire de catégorie II)
FSAC
means the five-digit Freight Station Accounting Code. (FSAC)
SPLC
means the Standard Point Location Code. (CULD)
STCC
means the seven-digit standard transportation commodity code. (CTBT)

Report to Minister — Traffic Information

52 (1) A class 1 rail carrier that is also a class II rail carrier and earns revenue in Canada for the reporting period must provide to the Minister a report by electronic means that sets out the following information with respect to any traffic that is moved by railway car:

(2) The rail carrier must provide the report to the Minister on a monthly basis, no later than the last day of the month following the month to which the information relates.

(3) The first report is to be provided for the month in which this section comes into force.

53 (1) A class 1 rail carrier that is also a class I rail carrier must provide to the Minister by electronic means a report that sets out the following information with respect to any traffic that is moved by a railway car:

(2) The rail carrier must provide the report to the Minister on a monthly basis, no later than the last day of the month following the month to which the information relates.

(3) The first report is to be provided for the month in which this section comes into force.

54 (1) A class 1 rail carrier that is also a class I rail carrier must provide to the Minister by electronic means a report that sets out the following service and performance information with respect to rail traffic moving on its network during the reporting week:

(2) Instead of providing the report set out in subsection (1), the BNSF Railway Company must provide to the Minister by electronic means a report that includes the information set out in paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) and (k).

(3) The rail carriers referred to in subsections (1) and (2) must provide the report to the Minister on a weekly basis, for the period from Monday to Sunday, no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time, on the Wednesday following the week to which the information relates.

(4) The first report is to be provided for the first full week of activity following the day on which this section comes into force.

55 The information referred to in section 54 is to be reported in accordance with the methodologies and requirements set out in Schedule XII.

2 The Regulations are amended by adding, after Schedule XI, the Schedule XII set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

Coming into Force

3 These Regulations come into force on the 90th day after the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 2)

SCHEDULE XII

(Section 55)

Rail Service and Performance Indicator Methodologies and Requirements

PART 1
Interpretation

1 The following definitions apply in this Schedule.

bad order
means the status or designation assigned to railway rolling stock, whether railway cars or locomotives, that indicates that the asset is unfit for service. (mauvais état)
carload traffic
means traffic, whether empty or loaded, that is not intermodal traffic. (trafic de wagons complets)
fertilizer
means traffic classified under STCC 2812534, 2818142, 2818146, 2818170, 2818426, 2819173, 2819454, 2819815, 2871235, 2871236, 2871238, 2871244, 2871313, 2871315 and 2871451. (engrais)
final railway facility
means the railway facility from which a railway car is delivered to destination. (installation ferroviaire finale)
intermodal traffic
means intermodal containers, whether empty or loaded, regardless of the type of good that is being transported in the containers. (trafic intermodal).
railway facility
means railway-owned infrastructure such as a terminal or yard. (installation ferroviaire)
reporting week
means the period from Monday to Sunday. (semaine de déclaration)
terminal area
means a top 10 railway facility and the stations, interchanges, and other railway facilities that the rail carrier serves, either directly or indirectly, from that top 10 railway facility. (zone terminale)
through train
means a train that has the same railway cars when it enters and exits a railway facility. (train direct)
top 10 railway facilities
means the top 10 of the rail carrier’s railway facilities with the highest volume throughput, as calculated in accordance with section 31 of this Schedule. (dix installations ferroviaires principales)
western grain
has the meaning assigned by paragraph (a) of the definition grain in section 147 of the Act. (grain de l’Ouest)

2 The following are the types of commodities that are used in the methodologies:

3 The following are the detailed types of commodities that are used in the methodologies:

4 The following are the equipment types that are used in the methodologies:

5 The following are the geographic regions that are used in the methodologies:

6 The following are the periods of dwell time that are used in the methodologies:

7 When calculating the indicators set out in Part 2 of this Schedule, the following cars are to be included:

8 When calculating the indicators set out in Part 2 of this Schedule, the following cars are to be excluded:

PART 2
Indicators

General

9 All indicators described in this Part are to be reported to one decimal place.

10 (1) The first report must be accompanied by a list of the events that are used in the calculations of indicators set out in sections 15 to 18, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 of this Schedule.

(2) The list of events must be updated following any subsequent change and submitted with the next report.

Cars Online

11 (1) The report must set out the daily average number of cars online and, in the case of intermodal traffic, the daily average number of intermodal containers online for each of the following:

(2) Instead of the information required in subsection (1), the report for the BNSF Railway Company must set out the daily average number of cars online and, in the case of intermodal traffic, the daily average number of intermodal containers online for each of the following:

12 The number of cars and intermodal containers referred to in section 11 of this Schedule includes cars and containers that the reporting rail carrier has placed for transfer at an interchange to another rail carrier until they are picked up by that other carrier and excludes cars and containers placed for interchange to the rail carrier by another rail carrier until they are picked up by the reporting rail carrier.

13 The calculation of the daily averages is to be based on a daily snapshot taken at the same time each day for all indicators that use a daily snapshot.

14 The first report must set out the time at which the snapshot is taken.

Cars Not Moving

15 (1) The report must set out, in the case of carload traffic, the daily average number of loaded cars not moving at origin, except for cars containing fertilizer, broken down by each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, broken down for each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule, and further broken down by each type of commodity, excluding fertilizer, as set out in section 2 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide daily average number of loaded cars not moving at origin for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, and further broken down by each detailed type of commodity set out in section 3 of this Schedule.

(2) The report must set out, in the case of intermodal traffic, the daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving at origin, broken down by each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, further broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving at origin broken down for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule.

(3) The daily average number of loaded cars and loaded intermodal containers not moving at origin is to be calculated as follows, based on a daily snapshot:

16 (1) The report must set out, in the case of carload traffic, the daily average number of loaded cars not moving en route for each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule, and further broken down by each type of commodity as set out in section 2 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide average for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 broken down by each detailed type of commodity as set out in section 3 of this Schedule.

(2) The report must set out, in the case of intermodal traffic, the daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving en route, broken down by each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, further broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving en route for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule.

(3) The daily average number of loaded cars and loaded intermodal containers not moving en route is to be calculated on the basis of a daily snapshot and is to include all loaded traffic that has departed origin but has not yet arrived at the final railway facility or been placed at destination. The time during which a car or intermodal container is not moving is to be calculated as the time that has elapsed between its last recorded movement event and the time of the daily snapshot.

17 (1) The report must set out, in the case of carload traffic, the daily average number of loaded cars not moving at destination for each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule, and further broken down by each type of commodity set out in section 2 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide average for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule broken down by each detailed type of commodity set out in section 3 of this Schedule.

(2) The report must set out, in the case of intermodal traffic, the daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving at destination, broken down by each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, further broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule. Rail carriers are also to report the Canada-wide daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving at destination for each period of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule.

(3) The daily average number of loaded cars and loaded intermodal containers not moving at destination is to be calculated as follows, based on a daily snapshot:

18 (1) The report must set out the daily average number of loaded cars not moving and the daily average number of loaded intermodal containers not moving that are either destined for one of the rail carrier’s top five major destination areas referred to in paragraph (3)(a), or transiting through one of the rail carrier’s top five major destination areas referred to in paragraph (3)(b), for each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule.

(2) For each major destination area described in subsection (1), the report must identify

(3) The top five major destination areas are determined on the basis of the highest number of loaded cars and loaded intermodal containers for the preceding three years that were

19 (1) The first report must be accompanied by a list of the top five major destination areas determined in accordance with subsection 18(3) of this Schedule.

(2) The list must be updated three years after the day on which this Schedule comes into force and every three years after that in accordance with subsection 18(3) of this Schedule and submitted with the next report following any change to the list.

20 (1) The report must set out the daily average number of empty cars not moving and, in the case of intermodal traffic, the number of empty intermodal containers not moving for each of the periods of dwell time set out in section 6 of this Schedule, broken down by each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule and Canada-wide, and further broken down by each equipment type set out in section 4 of this Schedule.

(2) The daily average number of empty cars and intermodal containers not moving is to be calculated based on a daily snapshot , with the time during which an empty car or, for intermodal traffic, the time that an empty intermodal container is not moving, calculated as the time that has elapsed between the last recorded movement event and the time of the daily snapshot.

Origin Dwell Time

21 (1) The report must set out in hours the average dwell time at origin for all loaded traffic that departs an origin station during the reporting week,

(2) The origin dwell time is to be calculated as follows:

22 The number of cars and intermodal containers included in the calculation of the average dwell time at origin must be reported as follows:

Destination Dwell Time

23 (1) The report must set out in hours the average dwell time at destination for all traffic that the rail carrier placed at destination during the reporting week,

(2) The average dwell time at destination is to be calculated as follows:

24 For each destination dwell time reported for carload traffic, the report must set out the number of cars and, for each dwell time reported for intermodal traffic, the report must also set out the number of intermodal containers included in the calculations.

Terminal Dwell Time

25 The report must set out the average terminal dwell time in hours for the reporting week for the terminal areas served by each of the top 10 railway facilities of the rail carrier, for

26 The report must set out the average terminal dwell time in hours for the reporting week for all of the top 10 railway facilities combined, calculated at the car level, for

27 Through trains that do not stop in the terminal area are excluded from the calculations in sections 25 and 26 of this Schedule.

28 Intermodal containers that have remained at a railway facility for more than 30 days are excluded from the calculations in sections 25 and 26 of this Schedule.

29 For carload traffic, the following rules apply to the calculations in sections 25 and 26 of this Schedule:

30 For intermodal traffic, the following rules apply to the calculations in sections 25 and 26 of this Schedule:

31 (1) The top 10 railway facilities of a rail carrier are to be determined according to throughput, calculated as the average annual number of loaded and empty cars, excluding through trains, processed during the previous three calendar years.

(2) When accounting for intermodal traffic in the calculation of throughput, intermodal railcars are to be counted, but not intermodal containers, and articulated cars and multi-packs are to be counted as one car regardless of the number of platforms.

32 If one of a rail carrier’s top 10 railway facilities is part of the terminal area of another of the rail carrier’s top 10 railway facilities, only the railway facility with the greatest volume throughput is to have a terminal area designated for reporting terminal dwell time, in which case the facility with the smaller throughput is to be replaced by the next largest railway facility that does not already appear in the top 10 railway facilities.

33 A rail carrier must update the list of its top 10 railway facilities every three years after the day on which this Schedule comes into force and every three years after that using the calculation set out in section 31 of this Schedule.

34 (1) The first report must be accompanied by the following information for each terminal area:

(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) must be updated following any change to the list of top 10 railway facilities and submitted with the next report.

(3) The information in subsection (1) with respect to a terminal area must be updated each time a change in the rail carrier’s operations results in a change to the list of facilities and stations served by the facility, and submitted with the next report.

35 The report is also to include the following information for each terminal area and for the top 10 terminal areas combined:

36 Despite section 35 of this Schedule, the report for the BNSF Railway Company must set out for each terminal area the combined total count of cars and intermodal containers included in the calculation of the terminal dwell time for the reporting week not broken down by type of commodity or equipment type.

Segment Transit Time

37 (1) The report must set out in hours the average segment transit time for cars, in the case of carload traffic, and for intermodal containers, in the case of intermodal traffic, that fully transit a segment that connects any of the rail carrier’s top 10 railway facilities with the next top 10 railway facility on the car or container’s route.

(2) If any of the top 10 railway facilities of a rail carrier is within 40 km of another top 10 railway facility, the facility with the smaller throughput is to be replaced by the next largest railway facility that does not appear in the rail carrier’s list of top 10 railway facilities for the purposes of calculating the segment transit time indicator only.

(3) The report must also set out the average segment transit time for cars and intermodal containers that fully transit a segment that connects any of the rail carrier’s top 10 railway facilities with the largest railway facility in a province in which none of the top 10 railway facilities is located.

38 The measurement of segment transit time begins with the last event related to the car and intermodal container passing by or departing the railway facility that begins the segment and ends with the first event related to the passing by or arrival of the car or intermodal container at the railway facility that completes the segment.

39 (1) Segment transit time is to be reported for

(2) For each segment transit time reported, the report must set out the number of cars and of intermodal containers included in each calculation.

40 The segments reported under segment transit time must be updated each time a rail carrier changes its list of top 10 railway facilities.

41 (1) The first report must be accompanied by a list of the length in kilometres of each segment.

(2) The list of segment lengths must be updated following any change and submitted with the next report.

Velocity

42 (1) The report must set out the average velocity — daily average car kilometres — for each of the equipment types set out in section 4 of this Schedule, for all cars and intermodal containers, whether or not they have moved.

(2) The average velocity is calculated by dividing the total daily car-kilometres by the sum of daily cars online for the reporting week.

(3) The report must set out the daily average number of cars and intermodal containers included in the calculation of each velocity reported.

Locomotive Fleet Status

43 (1) The report must set out for each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule and on a Canada-wide basis the following:

(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) includes the locomotives, whether owned or leased, within the network of the rail carrier and the foreign locomotives that are operated by the rail carrier on its network but does not include locomotives in passenger, work and company service.

(3) The calculation of the daily averages referred to in subsection (1) is to be based on a daily snapshot.

Number of Employees

44 (1) The report must set out, for each geographic region set out in section 5 of this Schedule and on a Canada-wide basis, the number of railway operating employees, other than trainees, who are employed by the rail carrier, who were available to move traffic during the reporting week and whose primary occupation is one of the following positions:

(2) The number of employees is to be based on a weekly snapshot taken on the same day of each reporting week, with the first report setting the day on which the snapshot is taken.

(3) When determining the number of employees, employees who are available to move traffic in more than one of the geographic regions set out in section 5 of this Schedule are to be included in the count for only one of those geographic regions.

(4) An employee may be considered to be available if they are on short-term leave, such as sick leave, personal leave, vacation leave or an elective or mandatory rest day, at the time of the snapshot.

(5) An employee is not considered to be available if they are suspended or on long-term leave, such as disability leave, parental leave or leave without pay, at the time of the snapshot.