C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER X—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER D—CARRIER RATES AND SERVICE TERMS › PART 1300—DISCLOSURE, PUBLICATION, AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF RATES AND OTHER SERVICE TERMS FOR RAIL COMMON CARRIAGE

49 C.F.R. § 1300.4

Notice requirement

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

(a) A rail carrier may not increase any rates or charges, or change any service terms (except for changes that are equivalent to rate reductions), unless 20 days have expired after written or electronic notice has been provided to all persons who, within the previous 12 months:

(1) Have formally requested under ;§ 1300.2 or § 1300.3 of this part the affected rates or service terms; or

(2) Have made arrangements with the carrier for a future shipment that would be subject to the increased rates or changed service terms.

(b) The notice required by this section may be in written or electronic form, as agreed to by the parties. If the parties cannot agree, the 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) For purposes of this section, a mailed notice is deemed “provided” on the date such notice is postmarked.

(d) The notice required by this section must clearly identify the increases in rates or charges or the changes in service terms.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1969–1986 · leading case: Regular Common Carrier Conf. v. United States, 793 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Regular Common Carrier Conf. v. United States, 793 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “§ 10762 (a)(2) & (c)(3) and 49 C.F.R. § 1300.4 (i) (1983). On April 17, 1984, certain of the petitioners before us (who represent carriers that compete directly with FFTB members) filed a protest against the proposed rule, arguing that it violated several provisions of the Act…”
Long Island Rail Road v. United States, 307 F. Supp. 988 (E.D.N.Y 1969). “Assuming that there is some “rule” providing for blocked-door loading, and placarding and noted bills-of-lading, plaintiff argues that the regulations of the ICC itself, 49 C.F.R. § 1300.4 (h), require that the rule be included in a filed tariff.”
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.