U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 107— RATES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL AUTHORITY

49 U.S.C. § 10705

Authority: through routes, joint classifications, rates, and divisions prescribed by Board

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) The Board may, and shall when it considers it desirable in the public interest, prescribe through routes, joint classifications, joint rates, the division of joint rates, and the conditions under which those routes must be operated, for a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part.(2) The Board may require a rail carrier to include in a through route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and any intermediate railroad operated with it under common management or control if that intermediate railroad lies between the terminals of the through route only when—(A) required under section 10741, 10742, or 11102 of this title;(B) inclusion of those lines would make the through route unreasonably long when compared with a practicable alternative through route that could be established; or(C) the Board decides that the proposed through route is needed to provide adequate, and more efficient or economic, transportation.The Board shall give reasonable preference, subject to this subsection, to the rail carrier originating the traffic when prescribing through routes.(b) The Board shall prescribe the division of joint rates to be received by a rail carrier providing transportation subject to its jurisdiction under this part when it decides that a division of joint rates established by the participating carriers under section 10703 of this title, or under a decision of the Board under subsection (a) of this section, does or will violate section 10701 of this title.(c) If a division of a joint rate prescribed under a decision of the Board is later found to violate section 10701 of this title, the Board may decide what division would have been reasonable and order adjustment to be made retroactive to the date the complaint was filed, the date the order for an investigation was made, or a later date that the Board decides is justified. The Board may make a decision under this subsection effective as part of its original decision.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 811.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Prior sections 10705 and 10705a were omitted in the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Section 10705, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1375; Pub. L. 96–296, § 22(b)–(g), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 813; Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 218, Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1925; Pub. L. 97–449, § 5(g)(4), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2443, related to authority for through routes, joint classifications, rates, and divisions prescribed by Interstate Commerce Commission. See sections 10705 and 13701 of this title.

Section 10705a, added Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 217(a)(1), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1916; amended Pub. L. 103–272, § 4(j)(20), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1369, related to joint rate surcharges and cancellations.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases, 1979–2017 · leading case: Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 7× “, 49 U.S.C. §§ 10705 , 10705a. The Boxcars decisions removed all regulations on freight rates, including joint rates.”
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Consol. Rail Corp., Intervenor, 796 F.2d 1534 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 8× “” 49 U.S.C. § 10705 (e) (1982). The threshold decision by the Commission whether to suspend or investigate the cancellation is not subject to judicial review.”
Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth., 399 P.3d 37 (Cal. 2017). “, §§ 11323-11324), including leases or contracts to operate property of another rail carrier, acquisition of control of a rail carrier or nonrail carrier, and acquisition by a rail carrier of trackage rights over a line owned or operated by another.”
In the Matter of Iowa R.R. Co., Debtor. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Terry F. Moritz, Tr. of Iowa R.R. Co., 840 F.2d 535 (7th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “They need not offer interline services or through rates — although the ICC may order the establishment of through routes, 49 U.S.C. § 10705 (a)(1). If a carrier proposes to back out it must show that the cessation is appropriate, and the ICC may suspend the withdrawal and…”
Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Kern Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “( 49 U.S.C. §§ 10705 , 10707.) The statutory provisions most relevant to the preemption arguments presented in this appeal explicitly address the Surface Transportation Board's jurisdiction and preemption.”
Green Bay & W. R.R. v. United States, 644 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir. 1981). · cites it 6× “This appeal presents the question of whether Consolidated Rail Corporation’s (ConRail) cancellation of joint rates with the Ann Arbor Railroad System (Ann Arbor) is consistent with the public interest, within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 10705 (d). The Commission approved the…”
Freightcor Servs., Inc., Debtor-In-Possession v. Vitro Packaging, Inc., 969 F.2d 1563 (5th Cir. 1992). “49 U.S.C. § 10705 (b)(1) provides: The Interstate Commerce Commission may, and shall when it considers it desirable in the public interest, prescribe .”
The Soc'y of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & the United States of Am., Forty Railroads, Intervenors, 955 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the Society’s contentions, a holding that MIFTRs are a permissible *728 form of joint rate does not render 49 U.S.C. §§ 10705 and 10705a superfluous and meaningless.”
Chicago & North W. Transp. Co. v. The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 609 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1979). “The federal interest in regulating the division of revenues derived from such services is manifest in the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.”
Midtec Paper Corp. v. United States, 857 F.2d 1487 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “If the carriers could not agree between themselves, the Commission could, if “it considers it desirable in the public interest,” 49 U.S.C. § 10705 (a)(1) (1982), 1 prescribe through routes, joint rates, and division formulae.”
S. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Fam. Lines Rail Sys., Intervenor, 681 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “49 U.S.C. § 10705 (e). 7 On October 21, 1981, the ICC Suspension Board announced by telephone that it had decided not to suspend or investigate the challenged tariff.”
Cheney R.R. Co., Inc. v. R.R. Ret. Bd., Tyson R.R., Inc. v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 50 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “Similarly, the provision in the 1978 codification of 49 U.S.C. § 10705 (a)(1) that the "Commission may, and shall when it considers it desirable in the public interest, prescribe .”
Show all 40 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.