49 U.S.C. § 10701

Standards for rates, classifications, through routes, rules, and practices

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A through route established by a rail carrier must be reasonable. Divisions of joint rates by rail carriers must be made without unreasonable discrimination against a participating carrier and must be reasonable.(b) A rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not discriminate in its rates against a connecting line of another rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part or unreasonably discriminate against that line in the distribution of traffic that is not routed specifically by the shipper.(c) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section and unless a rate is prohibited by a provision of this part, a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may establish any rate for transportation or other service provided by the rail carrier.(d)(1) If the Board determines, under section 10707 of this title, that a rail carrier has market dominance over the transportation to which a particular rate applies, the rate established by such carrier for such transportation must be reasonable.(2) In determining whether a rate established by a rail carrier is reasonable for purposes of this section, the Board shall give due consideration to—(A) the amount of traffic which is transported at revenues which do not contribute to going concern value and the efforts made to minimize such traffic;(B) the amount of traffic which contributes only marginally to fixed costs and the extent to which, if any, rates on such traffic can be changed to maximize the revenues from such traffic; and(C) the carrier’s mix of rail traffic to determine whether one commodity is paying an unreasonable share of the carrier’s overall revenues,recognizing the policy of this part that rail carriers shall earn adequate revenues, as established by the Board under section 10704(a)(2) of this title.(3) The Board shall maintain 1 or more simplified and expedited methods for determining the reasonableness of challenged rates in those cases in which a full stand-alone cost presentation is too costly, given the value of the case.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 809; amended Pub. L. 104–287, § 5(22), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3390; Pub. L. 114–110, § 11(a), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2233.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Prior sections 10701 and 10701a were omitted in the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Section 10701, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1371; Pub. L. 96–296, § 13(a), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 803; Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 201(b)(1), (2), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1899, 1900; Pub. L. 97–261, § 9(a), Sept. 20, 1982, 96 Stat. 1109; Pub. L. 103–180, § 2(a), (b), (g), Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2044, 2047, 2049, related to standards for rates, classifications, through routes, rules, and practices. See sections 10701, 13701, 13709, and 15501 of this title.

Section 10701a, added Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1898; amended Pub. L. 103–272, § 4(j)(19), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1369, related to standards for rates for rail carriers. See section 10701 of this title.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 114–110 amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The Board shall, within one year after January 1, 1996, complete the pending Interstate Commerce Commission non-coal rate guidelines proceeding to establish a simplified and expedited method for determining the reasonableness of challenged rail rates in those cases in which a full stand-alone cost presentation is too costly, given the value of the case.”

1996—Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 104–287 substituted “January 1, 1996” for “the effective date of this paragraph”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished by section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 236 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990). · cites it 4× “JUSTICE STEVENS argues that there is no textual limitation on the scope of the term "reasonable," as that term is used in 49 U. S. C. § 10701 (a) (1982 ed.) ("A...”

Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Repub. Tobacco, Inc., 178 B.R. 999 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 18× “Specifically, Republic relies on section 2(a) of the NRA, 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (f)(9), which exempts small businesses from liability for tariff undercharges.”

Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Transtop, Inc., 902 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1990). · cites it 9× “See 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (a) (stating that a carrier’s “rate[s]” and “practice[s]” must be “reasonable”).”

In the Matter of Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp., Debtor. Appeal of Bruce E. De Medici, Tr. for Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp., 63 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “FDSI claimed that Section 2(a) of the Negotiated Rates Act (“NRA”), 1 codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (f), prohibited the Trustee from recovering undercharges because FDSI was a small business concern.”

De'Medici v. FDSI Mgmt. Grp. (In Re Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp.), 174 B.R. 271 (N.D. Ill. 1994). · cites it 14× “See 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (f)(9). The bankruptcy court agreed with the defendant’s position and recommended that we enter judgment in defendant’s favor.”

Maislin Indus. & U.S. Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 879 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 8× “The district court affirmed a ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission finding it unreasonable under 49 U.S.C. § 10701 for Maislin to recover tariff charges higher than those agreed to by the parties.”

Whitaker v. Power Brake Supply, Inc., 68 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1995). · cites it 16× “*1305 HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Bankruptcy Code sections 363(Z) and 541(c)(1) do not proscribe the application of the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 (NRA), partially codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (f), to a bankruptcy…”

Hoarty v. Midwest Carriers Corp. (In Re Best Refrigerated Express, Inc.), 168 B.R. 978 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1994). · cites it 10× “2044 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 10701 ) (1994) [hereinafter the NRA], The NRA has significantly changed the law by promulgating retroactive standards to determine whether a motor carrier or its representative is entitled to undercharge claims.”

In Re Transcon Lines, Debtor. Leonard L. Gumport, Tr. of the Bankr. Est. of Transcon Lines v. Sterling Press, 58 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 8× “2044 (partially codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (f)), to a nonoperating motor carrier of freight in bankruptcy.”

Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002). · cites it 2× “824 ; Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 10701 (1994 ed., Supp. V); Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.”

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. STB, 113 F.4th 823 (8th Cir. 2024). · cites it 8× “” 49 U.S.C. § 10701 (d)(3). These petitions for review challenge the Board’s adoption of a final rule to establish a new procedure for challenging the reasonableness of rail carrier rates in smaller cases, the Final Offer Rate Review (FORR).”

Thomas G. Lovett, Jr., Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Transp. Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 930 F.2d 625 (8th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “49 U.S.C. § 10701 (a) (1988). Following the deregulation of motor carriers in 1980, motor carriers began to negotiate rates with shippers.”

Show all 236 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 10701(a) — 2 cases

Sec. Servs., Inc. F/k/a Riss Int'l Corp. v. K Mart Corp., 996 F.2d 1516 (3rd Cir. 1993).

Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Zenith Elec. Corp., 708 F. Supp. 845 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

— 49 U.S.C. § 10701(f)(1)(B) — 1 case

Am. Freight Sys., Inc. v. Valiant Prods. Corp. (In re Am. Freight Sys., Inc.), 185 B.R. 345 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1995).

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.