U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 113— FINANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— COMBINATIONS

49 U.S.C. § 11322

Limitation on pooling and division of transportation or earnings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not agree or combine with another of those rail carriers to pool or divide traffic or services or any part of their earnings without the approval of the Board under this section or section 11123 of this title. The Board may approve and authorize the agreement or combination if the rail carriers involved assent to the pooling or division and the Board finds that a pooling or division of traffic, services, or earnings—(1) will be in the interest of better service to the public or of economy of operation; and(2) will not unreasonably restrain competition.(b) The Board may impose conditions governing the pooling or division and may approve and authorize payment of a reasonable consideration between the rail carriers.(c) The Board may begin a proceeding under this section on its own initiative or on application.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 838.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11342 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

A prior section 11322, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1433, related to restrictions on officers and directors of carriers, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See section 11328 of this title.

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 6 cases, 1981–2007 · leading case: United Transp. Union v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Ass'n of Am. Railroads, Intervenor, 891 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Transp. Union v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Ass'n of Am. Railroads, Intervenor, 891 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge: This is a petition brought by the United Transportation Union (“UTU”), 1 seeking review of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (“ICC”) decision to adopt a rule that exempts the officers and directors of certain rail carriers from obtaining prior…”
BankAmerica Corp. v. United States, 462 U.S. 122 (1983). “On the same day the House originally passed the Clayton Act, it also passed an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) that would have prohibited carrier-carrier interlocks not approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
TTX CO. v. Whitley, 692 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “Although the STB does not regulate TTX as a common carrier, the agency monitors the company’s pooling activities pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11322 (1994). TTX calculated its Illinois income taxes for the calendar year 1984 using a three-factor apportionment formula pursuant to…”
Csx Transp., Inc. v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union United Transp. Union, 480 F.3d 678 (4th Cir. 2007). “CSXT argued that the NRAB did not have jurisdiction to resolve those disputes; rather, CSXT claimed that the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) (formerly known as the Interstate Commerce Commission 1 (“ICC”)) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.”
McGinness v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 662 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Ill 1979) (formerly section 5(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act) and 49 U.S.C. § 11322 (a) (Supp. Ill 1979) (formerly section 20a(12) of the Act).”
CSX Transp. v. Transp. Comm Intl Union (4th Cir. 2007). “CSXT argued that the NRAB did not have jurisdiction to resolve those disputes; rather, CSXT claimed that the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") (for- merly known as the Interstate Commerce Commission1 ("ICC")) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. We affirm the judgment…”
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.