PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 24, 2015
Rail Shipper Fairness Act of 2015
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) may:
issue emergency service orders covering rail carrier shipments moving under contract only if they are part of a regional service order; and
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
require reports, service plans, or other documents that cover shipments moving under contract if such shipments are part of a general report, service plan, or other document that generally covers the geographic area or commodity.
Rail carriers shall be liable to any person in federal district court for damages or equitable relief as a result of inadequate or deficient service in violation of federal law.
Civil monetary penalties for rail carriers increase from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation.
It is U.S. transportation policy to provide for and promote the protection of the shipping public.
Shippers may obtain rates to or from any interchange points of two or more rail carriers.
When determining whether a rail carrier proposing a rate challenged as unreasonably high has market dominance over the transportation to which the rate applies, the STB shall consider that the rail carrier could have market dominance even in circumstances in which a shipper is served by two carriers.
The circumstances involving mandatory reciprocal switching agreements are changed. The STB shall now require a Class 1 rail carrier to enter into a competitive switching agreement if a shipper or receiver (or a group of shippers or receivers) files a petition that satisfies the Board that:
the facilities of the shipper or receiver are served by rail only by a single, Class I rail carrier; and
there is or can be a working interchange between the Class I rail carrier serving the shipper or receiver in question and another rail carrier within a reasonable distance of the facilities of such shipper or receiver.
Competitive switching may not be imposed, however, if:
either rail carrier between which such switching is to be established demonstrates that the proposed switching is not feasible or is unsafe, or
the presence of reciprocal switching will unduly restrict the ability of a rail carrier to serve its own shippers.
The STB must observe specified rules when deciding stand-alone cost cases with respect to a maximum reasonable rate.
The STB shall apply a certain formula to calculate a rail carrier's cost of capital. This replaces the current requirement that the STB determine annually which rail carriers are earning adequate revenues.
The number of STB members increases from 3 to 5, with no more than 3 of them (currently no more than 2 of them) from the same party. At least 2 members must have a background in shipping or consumer advocacy.
The STB must meet regularly.
People & committees
Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.853 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.853 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.853 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.853 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.