Proposed Rule Explained – Key Changes, Impact & Compliance Guide

File your comment on regulationsgov within 30 days of publication, and attach facility-level data: daily carloads, average dwell hours, number of facilities affected, and three model contract paragraphs that define service metrics and remedies. Focus your request on quantifiable impacts, propose a phased compliance timeline (90–180 days) and cite sample language that regulators can adopt to create clearer expectations for carriers and terminals.

The rule proposes clearer service obligations that require carriers to move and release cars consistently and to document picks and delivery windows at each facility. At this point the proposal aims to reduce the delays plaguing interchange and terminal operations by setting explicit time-to-move standards which carriers such as csxt must meet or explain for each route. Expect bargaining pressure where collective agreements limit operational changes; include suggested clause text that preserves contract rights while allowing expedited operational fixes.

Follow a practical compliance checklist: (1) collect baseline metrics – daily picks per facility, average transit hours, on-dock dwell and turn times; (2) build a 12‑month impact model showing costs per car and projected service gains; (3) file a comment that attaches CSV datasets and redlined contract language; (4) submit a targeted request for a safe-harbor period for carriers to implement changes; (5) engage shippers and local terminals to document recurring failures that the rule attempts to fix. Use precise examples, name affected facilities, and show how proposed timelines are needed to stop patterns plaguing operations so regulators can convert anecdotes into enforceable standards.

Agency Notice, Rule Scope and Finalization Status

Submit a focused comment on regulationsgov within 30 days and attach a one‑page paper that quantifies expected impacts: estimated compliance cost per year, additional staff hours per month, and time-to-implementation measured in calendar days. Prioritize metrics that show higher administrative burden and present at least three mitigation options with cost ranges so reviewers can spot tradeoffs quickly.

Interpret scope narrowly: the proposal covers a range of entities from micro businesses to multinational firms, with thresholds established in the notice (revenue and shipment triggers). Apply those thresholds to your sector-specific data – including food processors and railroading companies – and flag any segments where the proposed thresholds shift compliance from de minimis to reportable. Characterized by a tiered approach, the rule ties reporting frequency to revenue bands; map your firm into the correct band, document the methodology for measuring baseline activity, and list any gaps that create potential compliance shortfalls.

Track finalization status closely: the agency posted the NPRM on regulationsgov and scheduled a public meeting within 45 days; expect a typical finalization window of 90–180 days unless a concurrent bill or major litigation intervenes. Watch for agency picks among alternatives during the meeting and for spot technical corrections after publication. Avoid relying solely on draft text; measure inadequacy of current internal controls against the proposal’s requirements and brief senior leaders with scenario analyses that show costs at low, mid, and high adoption times so they can decide whether to pursue consensus comments, seek clarifying guidance, or prepare legislative outreach.

Dive Brief: Which provisions the STB adopted and what ACTION means for carriers

Immediately review and revise terminal operating agreements to reflect the STB-adopted provisions: prioritize reporting, interchange obligations, and customer access so your teams can act within 30 days.

The STB adopts clearer reporting mandates: carriers were required to provide monthly statistics on dwell times, interchange windows and switching performance; the Board requested supporting documents showing how facilities manage peak flows and how delays were addressed.

ACTION means carriers must conduct a documented self-assessment of their terminals and yards, improve scheduling to reduce falling performance metrics, and implement incentive mechanisms that incentivize on-time handoffs between railroads and terminal operators.

Operational steps: within 30 days compile the requested documents, update switch settings and communications protocols, align dispatch with terminal managers, and notify customers with specific change timelines and expected service impacts.

Compliance and oversight: the STB expects continuous filings of statistics and incident reports; maintain audit trails provided by your TMS or servrr platform, share compliance packets with AFPM and canadian partners where cross-border moves occur, and attach evidence of corrective conduct.

Make effective fixes now: assign a lead for each facility, set weekly KPI reviews, create contractual incentives for terminal operators and switching providers, and ensure their corrective plans are documented and available to regulators and to affected customers.

Dive Insight: How reciprocal switching may change routing choices and contractual leverage for shippers

Actively negotiate reciprocal-switching clauses into contracts: require specific timelines, defined handoff points and liquidated damages so carriers have a clear incentive to accept alternative routings for short shipments and higher-volume lanes.

Regulatory modeling released recently estimated reciprocal access could lower origin-to-destination line-haul rates by 5–12% in certain markets, shifting thousands of carloads annually; railroading industry executives have argued those savings concentrate where captive access currently raises costs for customers. Note that models assume permitting and terminal development timelines of 6–18 months for new interchange facilities, so expect phased effects rather than immediate relief.

Practical clause language should include: a short cure window for refusals, a mandatory offer of an alternative carrier option, minimal notice requirements, cost-allocation rules for interchange facility upgrades, and an explicit mechanism to incentivize performance by new entrants. Insert audit rights so shippers can verify that carriers actually route shipments through the alternative and that settlement credits reach them.

Operationally, conduct quarterly route reviews with carriers and your logistics providers, focused on lanes where market concentration exceeds 65% share or where dwell times are 24+ hours. Require carriers to provide lane-specific efficiency metrics (terminal dwell, transit time variance, interchange acceptance rate) and tie a portion of access fees to measurable improvements that benefit customers directly.

For procurement teams: score bids with at least 20% weight on reciprocal-switching readiness, include contingency budgets for minimal facility upgrades, and keep a sidebar of three vetted alternative operators ready to onboard within 90 days. These steps convert regulatory change into concrete contractual leverage and clearer routing choices for shippers and their supply-chain partners.

Availability under Part 1145: Step-by-step test to determine eligibility for service-related reciprocal switching

Apply the following step-by-step test to determine eligibility for service-related reciprocal switching under Part 1145.

1. Define the public service need and premise: quantify the affected lane(s) with origin-destination pairs, monthly carload volumes, and the number of shippers that would benefit. Provide an overview table that lists each lane, current carrier, and the shipment frequency–use a threshold (suggested: 50 carloads per month or 600 per year) to screen lanes that often qualify for review.

2. Locate and document the proposed switching point: identify the exact milepost, interchange, or yard where switching would occur and map existing trackage, spurs, and sidings. Note any branch or regional trackage constraints that would affect movement and include track ownership details.

3. Assess safety obligations: compile FRA and carrier safety records for the switching point and adjacent segments, and list required safety measures (signal upgrades, speed restrictions, crew training). Require certifications from carriers that safety risks would be mitigated before any operations commence.

4. Test operational feasibility: model train paths, additional moves per day, crew and locomotive needs, and yard capacity. In cases where capacity is limited, identify specific capital or operational changes that would make switching feasible instead of imposing indefinite restrictions.

5. Measure competitive impact: calculate projected changes in transit time, tariff differentials, and expected rate reductions for shippers. Provide a quantitative estimate of how reciprocal switching would reduce shipper costs and increase service options at the lane and regional level.

6. Analyze incumbent harm and compensation: require the incumbent to submit a revenue-impact model showing lost car-miles and incremental operating costs. Propose mitigations–short-term compensation, phased implementation, or routing agreements–that would make the remedy less disruptive.

7. Compile evidentiary record for the subdocket: attach traffic reports, track diagrams, timetables, and shipper declarations. A sidebar checklist should flag items frequently omitted (turnout capacity, grade crossings, and loading/unloading constraints) so the subdocket contains complete details from the start.

8. Evaluate public-interest and environmental factors: document community impacts, noise and grade-crossing effects, and any regional economic benefits. The reviewing authority should weigh public benefits that are characterized by measurable service improvements against localized disamenities.

9. Define monitoring and enforcement measures: specify performance metrics (on-time percentages, dwell time, interchange counts) and reporting frequency–suggest monthly reporting for the first 12 months and quarterly thereafter. Include remedies for noncompliance that would reduce or suspend switching rights if metrics are not met.

10. Set a streamlined timeline and implementation plan: propose a target decision window (example: 90 days for initial determination, 120 days to implement technical changes) and provide an opportunity for expedited regional coordination where multiple carriers or lanes are involved. Include clear milestones and times when parties must submit updates throughout the process.

Note: parties should attach maps showing trackage and lane details, a redacted revenue-impact model if confidentiality is needed, and evidence of prior negotiations–if applicants previously engaged the incumbent, include that correspondence to demonstrate good faith. This test provides a practical roadmap that the applicant and regulator can use to reduce uncertainty, make certain safety and operational issues are addressed, and expedite a fair resolution.

Reciprocal Switching for Inadequate Service: evidence to compile, timelines to meet, and likely remedies

File a reciprocal switching petition only after you compile a dossier that proves inadequate service quantitatively and after you have given the carrier a formal 30‑day cure notice; if the carrier’s replies from that notice do not resolve the problem, submit the petition within 60 days to ensure procedural standing and preserve bargaining leverage.

Collect 12 months of baseline data plus the most recent 90 days that showed service deterioration: timestamped interchange records, car cycle times, terminal-area dwell (per terminal and per unit train), GPS movement traces, train consist lists, and line-haul delay logs. Include shipment-level business impact statements that quantify lost revenue, missed contracts, or higher logistics cost per ton-mile; attach invoices and supplier notices to show real economic interest. Provide emails and logged phone notes to document attempts at commercial resolution and bargaining before filing.

Structure evidence as discrete exhibits: Exhibit A = aggregated metrics (mean dwell, median transit days, percent slip beyond scheduled arrival), Exhibit B = time series charts that compare before and after key dates (for example, before reform or adoption of a new operating rule), Exhibit C = sampled movement records for at least 30 representative shipments, Exhibit D = terminal-area photos or CCTV timestamps if available, and Exhibit E = certified declarations from shippers or railcar owners. Each exhibit should state data source, extraction method, and any cleaning steps to preserve admissibility and practicability.

Meet these timelines: 30 days – formal cure notice to carrier; 14 days – preserve critical communications and issue litigation hold; 60 days – file petition if replies were inadequate or slip remediation; within the petition, propose interim operational metrics to monitor (daily dwell target, percent on-time departures, unit-train priority windows). Cite see49 references or applicable rule sections to anchor procedural requests and to show awareness of regulatory frameworks that sets expectations for the tribunal.

Anticipate remedies the regulator may grant: ordered reciprocal switching that staggers access points so shippers can route through an alternate terminal; mandated switching rates or fee schedules that the carrier must accept for a defined trial period; operational directives that create priority windows for unit trains and modify yard sequencing to improve line-haul movement; and reporting obligations that provide near-real-time metrics to the regulator. Remedies often balance practicability and market impact, so propose phased implementation that provides measurable checkpoints at 30, 60, and 120 days.

Addressing common factors that weaken petitions: avoid vague assertions, quantify the slip frequency and the percentage of traffic affected, show that problems have been persistent rather than isolated, and demonstrate that commercial negotiation has been attempted and been unsuccessful. Keep filings shipper-focused – show how the remedy benefits businesses at the heart of the complaint while minimizing undue disruption to the rail system’s broader movement and bargaining relationships.

Performance Standards: specific metrics to track, reporting formats, and dispute triggers

Require each lane to report a standardized set of metrics daily and escalate when a metric misses the threshold for three consecutive reporting periods; this protects shippers, carriers (including bnsf and csxt), terminals and distribution partners and provides executives with timely views for decision making.

Track these metrics per shipment, per train/truck/vessel and aggregated by lane: on-time arrival percentage (scheduled arrival ± 2 hours), terminal dwell (hours), transit time median and 95th percentile (hours), interchange acceptance rate (% accepted within 4 hours), loaded moves per day, empty miles ratio (%), velocity (miles per hour), claim rate (claims per 10,000 shipments), temperature excursions for food shipments (minutes outside tolerance), and marine transfer lag (hours). Record UTC timestamps, GPS traces, event source ID and carrier code for each event.

Set numeric targets and tolerances applicable throughout the contract term: on-time ≥ 92% (yellow at 88–91, red <88); terminal dwell ≤ 48 hours (yellow 49–72, red >72); interchange acceptance ≥ 98% (red <95); 95th percentile transit time ≤ lane-specific baseline + 20% (calculate baseline using prior 12 months); claim rate ≤ 3/10k (red ≥ 6/10k); food temperature excursions ≤ 0.5% of shipments per month. Define lane-specific baselines to adjust for marine transfers, seasonal peaks and network effects.

Provide reports in three machine-readable formats: CSV (RFC 4180) for batch, JSON (schema v1.2) for API exchange, and XML for legacy partners. Standardize column/field names: event_id, carrier_scac, lane_id, scheduled_arrival_utc, actual_arrival_utc, dwell_hours, transit_hours, gps_path_url, temperature_min_c, temperature_max_c, claim_id. Deliver daily files via SFTP (with PGP sign) and provide hourly API pushes for critical event changes. Include sample header row in the first CSV record and use ISO 8601 timestamps.

Define a dispute process with clear triggers and timelines: file a dispute within 10 business days of the report date, include EDI 214/315 events or GPS tracks, terminal receipts and photos when applicable. The provider conducts a preliminary examination within 7 calendar days and publishes findings; if unresolved, escalate to an adjudicatory panel within 14 days. The panel issues a binding determination within 21 days of escalation or recommends interim remedies. Allow arbitration beyond the adjudicatory result if contract language permits.

Specify burden of proof and acceptable evidence: time-stamped machine logs rank highest, followed by carrier-signed interchange receipts, followed by terminal CCTV/frame captures. Adjust thresholds when force majeure, marine congestion, or regulatory actions affect a lane; document adjustments and distribute them to executives and lane managers. Use andor logic in automated rulesets to combine criteria (for example: dwell >72 AND interchange <95% OR sustained GPS stops >4 hrs) as dispute triggers.

Assign roles and obligations: carrier obligation is to provide event feeds and terminal receipts; shipper obligation is to provide bill-of-lading and delivery acceptance timestamps for claims. Recommend monthly executive dashboards, weekly operational reports for operations managers, and daily exception lists for on-duty controllers. Include CSXT and BNSF comparisons in quarterly benchmarking to see whether degradation is lane-specific or network-wide.

Address remedies and effect on policy: tie financial remedies to sustained red-zone performance (example: credit equal to 1–3% of monthly freight charges per affected lane after 21-day adjudicatory decision). For food and other sensitive freight, require immediate notification and holdback authority until resolution. Document all dispute outcomes throughout the contract and include them in the annual distribution of lessons learned; that record provides the heart of future contract changes without delaying operations.