Except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 10502(e) and (g) and 13902, rail TOFC/COFC service and highway TOFC/COFC service provided by a rail carrier either itself or jointly with a motor carrier as part of a continuous intermodal freight movement is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, regardless of the type, affiliation, or ownership of the carrier performing the highway portion of the service. Motor carrier TOFC/COFC pickup and delivery services arranged independently with the shipper or receiver (or its representative/agent) and performed immediately before or after a TOFC/COFC movement provided by a rail carrier are similarly exempt. Tariffs heretofore applicable to any transportation service exempted by this section shall no longer apply to such service. The exemption does not apply to a motor carrier service in which a rail carrier participates only as the motor carrier's agent (Plan I TOFC/COFC), nor does the exemption operate to relieve any carrier of any obligation it would otherwise have, absent the exemption, with respect to providing contractual terms for liability and claims.
[54 FR 51746, Dec. 18, 1989, as amended at 81 FR 8852, Feb. 23, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010).
· cites it 5× “It is nota ble that although the STB has jurisdiction to regulate the rates of such carriers, even when the carriage is not gov erned by the Carmack Amendment, STB has exercised its authority to exempt from certain regulations service pro vided by a rail carrier “as part of a…”
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., 557 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 (“[R]ail TOFC/COFC service and highway TOFC/COFC service provided by a rail carrier either itself or jointly with a motor carrier as part of a continuous intermodal freight movement is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.”
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 540 F. Supp. 2d 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 . 6 Section 10502(e) further provides: “Nothing in this subsection or [Carmack] shall prevent rail carriers from offering alternative terms nor give the Board the authority to require any specific level of rates or services based upon [Carmack].”
Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. v. Amato Motors, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 426 (N.D. Ill. 1991).
“14348, see 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 ). Common carrier status places API under the jurisdiction of the ICC; that very premise relieves it of common law liability under the preemption doctrine.”
Regal-beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaish (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 (“[R]ail TOFC/ COFC service and highway TOFC/COFC service provided by a rail carrier either itself or jointly with a motor carrier as part of a continuous intermodal freight movement is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.”
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 (“[R]ail TOFC/ COFC service and highway TOFC/COFC service provided by a rail carrier either itself or jointly with a motor carrier as part of a continuous intermodal freight movement is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.”
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2 (“[R]ail TOFC/COFC service and highway TOFC/COFC service provided by a rail carrier either itself or jointly with a motor carrier as part of a continuous intermodal freight movement is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.