46 U.S.C. § 40501

General rate and tariff requirements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Automated Tariff System.—(1)In general.—Each common carrier and conference shall keep open to public inspection in an automated tariff system, tariffs showing all its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all points or ports on its own route and on any through transportation route that has been established. However, a common carrier is not required to state separately or otherwise reveal in tariffs the inland divisions of a through rate.(2)Exceptions.—Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to bulk cargo, forest products, recycled metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper, or paper waste.(b)Contents of Tariffs.—A tariff under subsection (a) shall—(1) state the places between which cargo will be carried;(2) list each classification of cargo in use;(3) state the level of compensation, if any, of any ocean freight forwarder by a carrier or conference;(4) state separately each terminal or other charge, privilege, or facility under the control of the carrier or conference and any rules that in any way change, affect, or determine any part or the total of the rates or charges;(5) include sample copies of any bill of lading, contract of affreightment, or other document evidencing the transportation agreement; and(6) include copies of any loyalty contract, omitting the shipper’s name.(c)Electronic Access.—A tariff under subsection (a) shall be made available electronically to any person, without time, quantity, or other limitation, through appropriate access from remote locations. A reasonable fee may be charged for such access, except that no fee may be charged for access by a Federal agency.(d)Time-Volume Rates.—A rate contained in a tariff under subsection (a) may vary with the volume of cargo offered over a specified period of time.(e)Effective Dates.—(1)Increases.—A new or initial rate or change in an existing rate that results in an increased cost to a shipper may not become effective earlier than 30 days after publication. However, for good cause, the Federal Maritime Commission may allow the rate to become effective sooner.(2)Decreases.—A change in an existing rate that results in a decreased cost to a shipper may become effective on publication.(f)Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.—A marine terminal operator may make available to the public a schedule of rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine terminal. Any such schedule made available to the public is enforceable by an appropriate court as an implied contract without proof of actual knowledge of its provisions.(g)Regulations.—(1)In general.—The Commission shall by regulation prescribe the requirements for the accessibility and accuracy of automated tariff systems established under this section. The Commission, after periodic review, may prohibit the use of any automated tariff system that fails to meet the requirements established under this section.(2)Remote terminals.—The Commission may not require a common carrier to provide a remote terminal for electronic access under subsection (c).(3)Marine terminal operator schedules.—The Commission shall by regulation prescribe the form and manner in which marine terminal operator schedules authorized by this section shall be published.(Pub. L. 109–304, § 7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1532.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
40501(a)	46 App.:1707(a)(1) (1st, 2d sentences).	Pub. L. 98–237, § 8(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 74; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, § 106(a), (c), (e), (f), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1905, 1907.
40501(b)	46 App.:1707(a)(1) (last sentence).
40501(c)	46 App.:1707(a)(2).
40501(d)	46 App.:1707(b).
40501(e)	46 App.:1707(d).
40501(f)	46 App.:1707(f).
40501(g)	46 App.:1707(g).

In subsection (b)(3), the words “ocean freight forwarder” are substituted for “ocean transportation intermediary, as defined in section 1702(17)(A) of this Appendix” because the definition of “ocean transportation intermediary” in section 1702(17)(A) contains a definition of “ocean freight forwarder” which is restated as a separate definition.

In subsection (e), the word “calendar” is omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (f)(1), the words “subject to section 1709(d) of this Appendix” are omitted as unnecessary.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Ondimar Transportes Maritimos v. Beatty Street Properties, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ondimar Transportes Maritimos v. Beatty Street Properties, Inc. (2009) ca5 “The Tariff, which is enforceable as an implied contract pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f) 1 , gives the Port rights it would not otherwise have with respect to Port users such as Ondi-mar.”

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. State (2012) gactapp “language, CTS asserts that the following provisions establish both field and conflict preemption: 46 USC § 41102 (c) (“Acommon carrier, marine terminal operator, or ocean transportation intermediary may not fail to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations…”

Lexington Insurance v. S.H.R.M. Catering Services, Inc. (2009) ca5 “It is true that the settling tortfeasor there was under pressure to settle within 30 days of demand or be precluded by the relevant tariff under 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f) from use of the port facilities of the injured party.”

IFG Port Holdings LLC v. South Louisiana Rail Facility LLC (2025) lawd · cites it 4× “SLRF also proposes that insofar as IFG is asserting claims under a Shipping Act tariff, IFG’s claim necessarily relies on a provision of the Shipping Act to have effect, 46 U.S.C. § 40501 , and thus gives rise to a federal question.”

Lexington Ins. Co. v. SHRM CATERING SERVICES, INC. (2009) ca5 “It is true that the settling tortfeasor there was under pressure to settle within 30 days of demand or be precluded by the relevant tariff under 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f) from use of the port facilities of the injured party.”

Red Hook Container Terminal v. South Pacific Shipping Co. Ltd (2021) ca2 “” 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f). But the Tariff’s terms are not enforceable when the “marine terminal operator has an actual contract with a party covering the services rendered by the marine terminal operator to that party.”

BRM Trades, LLC v. All-Ways Forwarding Int'l Inc. (2022) nysd “2 46 U.S.C. § 40501 mandates that a common carrier like All-Ways “keep open to public inspection in an automated tariff system, tariffs showing all its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all points or ports on its own route and on any through…”

KLM Consulting LLC v. Panacea Shipping Company, Inc. (2023) nysd “10 (citing 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (a)(1)). Those include, as relevant here: (1) a clause defining “Merchant” as “the Shipper, Holder, Consignee, Receiver of the Goods, any Person owning or entitled to the possession of the Goods or of this bill of lading and anyone acting on behalf…”

In re: M/V Yochow (2020) txsd “46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f) (emphasis added). The corresponding federal regulation defines “practices” to mean “those usages, customs or modes of operation which in any way affect, determine or change the rates, charges or services provided by a marine terminal operator.”

In re: M/V Yochow (2021) txsd “In its original Motion for 2 The Limitation Petitioners’ Reply also raises new arguments regarding the conflict between Subrule 047 and 048 and whether the 20% override and attorneys’ fee provisions of Subrule 059 qualify as “rates, regulations and practices” under 46 U.S.C. §…”

Pt. Jawamanis Rafinasi v. Coastal Cargo Com (2014) ca5 “Although the terminal tariff is not an actual contract between Coastal and Rafinasi, Coastal posits that the terminal tariff forms an implied contract under 46 U.S.C. § 40501 (f) and 46 C.F.R. § 525 , and should thus limit its liability.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.