When a freight railroad in the United States contracts with a rail shipper of bulk commodities to transport products, the railroad is bound by federal law. The federal code is known as the common carrier responsibility.
According to the definition of common carrier obligation, “a rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the [Surface Transportation Board] under this chapter shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request.”
According to the Association of American Railways, the common carrier obligation obligates railroads to deliver any freight that has been duly offered on reasonable terms and conditions.
However, the recent service concerns of Class I railways have prompted some, particularly shippers and those representing shippers, to wonder whether the common carrier commitment needs to be revised. They claim that specifying what “reasonable” implies will help ensure that the legislation requires appropriate rail service.
Currently, “fair” has been established by precedent and how the STB has assessed previous instances.
“At the heart of the common carrier obligation is the concept that railroads are in a special position of public trust.” As a result, they are subject to stricter levels of accountability than other private firms,” Dan Elliott told FreightWaves for this AskWaves article. Elliott is a former STB chairman who recently served as legal counsel for rail shippers at STB hearings in March and April.
“The common carrier commitment reflects a strong public policy that carriers should not halt operations unilaterally without exceptional circumstances,” he continued. “Many rail shippers rely entirely on railroads for transportation services. Without this common carrier requirement, these shippers would be at the mercy of railroads. This obligation to provide imposed on railroads is so critical to these shippers and our economy.”
Rail shippers contend that because the question of whether railways meet the common carrier requirement is predicated on reasonableness criteria, it provides little information on what constitutes a violation of the standard.
“I believe the ambiguity makes it more difficult for shippers to comprehend when a violation has happened, which reduces the possibility of their pursuing a lawsuit.” “A clearer definition would be beneficial to all parties, allowing shippers and railroads to understand exactly what the norm is,” Elliott said.
However, determining what standards the common carrier responsibility should respect is not an easy task. According to STB Chairman Marty Oberman, one challenge is ensuring that the rulemaking language is enforceable in court and covers a wide range of scenarios. Oberman recently told congressional leaders at a hearing that he and others are working on revising the common carrier commitment.
