It's not for me to judge. From a legal standpoint, if you remove “operational”, everything gets included: price, although there is a specific exclusion for price, but the amount of the charge could be up for debate.
Any clause that we normally would find in a contract would be up for discussion. If I put myself in the shipper's position, it wouldn't be a good thing for a shipper. As I've said to the department time and time again, the shippers don't want the arbitrator to have the ability to force on them a volume commitment, for example. If you were to remove “operational” from proposed section 169.37 you essentially would allow an arbitrator, in response to a request from a shipper, to impose terms: an ability for the arbitrator to force the shipper to commit all the volume of a client to that railway.
From a legal standpoint, if you remove it, you open the legislation up to everything, everything that could be the subject of a contractual agreement between shippers and railways. I'll stop there.