U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 117— ENFORCEMENT: INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES

49 U.S.C. § 11701

General authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the Board may begin an investigation under this part on the Board’s own initiative or upon receiving a complaint pursuant to subsection (b). If the Board finds that a rail carrier is violating this part, the Board shall take appropriate action to compel compliance with this part. If the Board finds a violation of this part in a proceeding brought on its own initiative, any remedy from such proceeding may only be applied prospectively.(b) A person, including a governmental authority, may file with the Board a complaint about a violation of this part by a rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part. The complaint must state the facts that are the subject of the violation. The Board may dismiss a complaint it determines does not state reasonable grounds for investigation and action. However, the Board may not dismiss a complaint made against a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.(c) A formal investigative proceeding begun by the Board under subsection (a) of this section is dismissed automatically unless it is concluded by the Board with administrative finality by the end of the third year after the date on which it was begun.(d) In any investigation commenced on the Board’s own initiative, the Board shall—(1) not later than 30 days after initiating the investigation, provide written notice to the parties under investigation, which shall state the basis for such investigation;(2) only investigate issues that are of national or regional significance;(3) permit the parties under investigation to file a written statement describing any or all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the subject of such investigation;(4) make available to the parties under investigation and Board members—(A) any recommendations made as a result of the investigation; and(B) a summary of the findings that support such recommendations;(5) to the extent practicable, separate the investigative and decisionmaking functions of staff;(6) dismiss any investigation that is not concluded by the Board with administrative finality within 1 year after the date on which it was commenced; and(7) not later than 90 days after receiving the recommendations and summary of findings under paragraph (4)—(A) dismiss the investigation if no further action is warranted; or(B) initiate a proceeding to determine if a provision under this part has been violated.(e)(1) Any parties to an investigation against whom a violation is found as a result of an investigation begun on the Board’s own initiative may, not later than 60 days after the date of the order of the Board finding such a violation, institute an action in the United States court of appeals for the appropriate judicial circuit for de novo review of such order in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5.(2) The court—(A) shall have jurisdiction to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, the order of the Board; and(B) may remand the proceeding to the Board for such further action as the court may direct.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 845; amended Pub. L. 114–110, § 12(a), (b), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2234.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 11701, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1449; Pub. L. 96–296, § 26(a), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 818; Pub. L. 98–554, title II, § 226(c)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2851; Pub. L. 99–521, § 12(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2998; Pub. L. 100–690, title IX, § 9111(i), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4534; Pub. L. 103–272, § 5(m)(34), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1378, related to general authority of Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce this subtitle, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See sections 11701, 14701, and 15901 of this title.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–110, § 12(a), substituted “on the Board’s own initiative or upon receiving a complaint pursuant to subsection (b)” for “only on complaint” and inserted at end “If the Board finds a violation of this part in a proceeding brought on its own initiative, any remedy from such proceeding may only be applied prospectively.”

Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 114–110, § 12(b), added subsecs. (d) and (e).

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.

Rulemakings for Investigations of the Board’s Initiative

Pub. L. 114–110, § 12(c), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2235, provided that: “Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 18, 2015], the Board shall issue rules, after notice and comment rulemaking, for investigations commenced on its own initiative that—“(1) comply with the requirements of section 11701(d) of title 49, United States Code, as added by subsection (b);“(2) satisfy due process requirements; and“(3) take into account ex parte constraints.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: BNSF Ry. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 453 F.3d 473 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 453 F.3d 473 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “BNSF argues first the Board should have dismissed the rate proceeding three years after the complaint was filed, pursuant to the limitation in 49 U.S.C. § 11701 (c). In the alternative BNSF argues we should, for a number of reasons, set aside the Board’s order as arbitrary and…”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 604 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “1 BNSF contends that *604 the Board’s decision was contrary to law because the three-year limit in 49 U.S.C. § 11701 (c) had expired before its February 17, 2009 Decision, and so the Board’s orders prescribing maximum reasonable rates and ordering the payment of reparations must…”
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd. & the United States of Am., West Texas Utils. Co., Intervenor, 75 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 11701 (a) (1995), amended by Termination Act § 102(a), 109 Stat.”
Chicago & North W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311 (1981). “§ 13 (1), recodified at 49 U. S. C. § 11701 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. III).”
S. Ry. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., 442 U.S. 444 (1979). “If such carrier or carriers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of tbe Commission to investigate *451 the matters complained of in such manner and by…”
Owner-operator Independ. Drivers Ass'n Inc. v. Arctic Express, Inc., 270 F. Supp. 2d 990 (S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 2× “In particular, the prior version of 49 U.S.C. § 11701 (a) authorized the ICC to initiate an investigation of a carrier’s alleged violation either on its own authority or upon a complaint by an owner-operator, and take “appropriate action” to compel the carrier’s compliance.”
W. Transp. Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc. & Wilson Foods Corp., 682 F.2d 1227 (7th Cir. 1982). “49 U.S.C. § 11701 . If the notation requirement is, as it appears to be, entirely pointless, the Commission can be expected to set aside this part of the tariff — thus knocking the props out from under Western’s case— if asked to do so.”
G. & T. Terminal Packaging Co., Inc. & Anthony Spinale v. Consol. Rail Corp., 830 F.2d 1230 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “In September, 1985, Conrail filed a petition with the Interstate Commerce Commission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11701 , requesting the commencement of a declaratory order proceeding to the effect that the commission retained jurisdiction over rates exempted pursuant to 49 U.”
Ralph J. Zola, North Am. Transp. Co., Inc., & Auto Caravan Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, & United States of Am., 889 F.2d 508 (3rd Cir. 1989). · cites it 5× “The Interstate Commerce Act gives the ICC the authority to “inquire into and report on the management of the business of” interstate carriers and of the business of a person “controlling, controlled by, or under common control with those carriers.”
Flynn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp.(BNSF), 98 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (E.D. Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “The fact that BNSF voluntarily participated in a local permitting process does not injure Plaintiffs as process before the STB is still available to Plaintiffs pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11701 (b). The statute provides that: [a] person .”
Global Van Lines, Inc., Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. & Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 704 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “A competing common carrier also has the option of filing a complaint with the Commission pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11701 (b) (Supp.III 1979) 7 , an older provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, for a contract carrier’s violation of the Motor Carrier Act or the Household Goods…”
Iowa Power & Light Co. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 712 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “See 49 U.S.C. § 11701 . Nor is there any indication that by permitting the previously rejected tariff to take effect retroactively, the ICC has in any way enabled BN to charge a rate unknown to the agency.”
Show all 81 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.