49 C.F.R. § 1300.2

Disclosure requirement for existing rates

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A rail carrier must disclose to any person, upon formal request, the specific rate(s) requested (or the basis for calculating the specific rate(s)), as well as all charges and service terms that may be applicable to transportation covered by the rate(s). For purposes of § 1300.4(a)(1) of this part, a formal request under this part is one that clearly notifies the railroad that the requester seeks not only immediate information but also notification of any future increases in the rate(s) involved or changes in pertinent service terms.

(b) The information provided by a rail carrier under this section must be provided immediately. (It is expected that the response will be sent within hours, or at least by the next business day, in most situations.) Such information may be provided either in written or electronic form as agreed to by the parties. If the parties cannot agree, such information is to be provided in electronic (non-passive) form where both parties have the requisite capabilities; otherwise, it is to be provided in writing.

(c) A rail carrier may, at its option, require that all requests submitted under this section be in written or electronic form, although the carrier may permit oral requests.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: Horizon Lines, LLC. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Horizon Lines, LLC. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006). “49 C.F.R. § 1300.2 (a). Customs reasoned that, “although the statute specifies the filing of rate tariffs with the [STB], mechanistic adherence to that requirement in the present climate of deregulation would lead to an absurd result that cannot be justified.”

Genstar Chem. Ltd. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 491 F. Supp. 391 (D.D.C. 1980). “49 C.F.R. § 1300.2 (a) now provides, “All tariff publications and supplements thereto must indicate changes thereby made in existing rates or charges .”

Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. v. United States, 682 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1982). “The controversial regulation was duly codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 1300.2 (a)(4), 1303.-4(d)(3), 1304.”

ABB, Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 467 (E.D.N.C. 2012). “Where, as here, a commercial shipper needs a rate quote for shipping a commodity such as an electrical transformer by rail, the shipper consults the selected carrier’s current published circular or rates brochure or, if a printed rate schedule is not available, locates the…”

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.