49 U.S.C. § 11904

Unlawful disclosure of information

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

(a) A—(1) rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part, or an officer, agent, or employee of that rail carrier, or another person authorized to receive information from that rail carrier, that knowingly discloses to another person, except the shipper or consignee; or(2) person who solicits or knowingly receives,information described in subsection (b) without the consent of the shipper or consignee shall be fined not more than $1,000.(b) The information referred to in subsection (a) is information about the nature, kind, quantity, destination, consignee, or routing of property tendered or delivered to that rail carrier for transportation provided under this part, or information about the contents of a contract authorized under section 10709 of this title, that may be used to the detriment of the shipper or consignee or may disclose improperly, to a competitor, the business transactions of the shipper or consignee.(c) This part does not prevent a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part from giving information—(1) in response to legal process issued under authority of a court of the United States or a State;(2) to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a State, or a territory or possession of the United States; or(3) to another rail carrier or its agent to adjust mutual traffic accounts in the ordinary course of business.(d) An employee of the Board delegated to make an inspection or examination under section 11144 of this title who knowingly discloses information acquired during that inspection or examination, except as directed by the Board, a court, or a judge of that court, shall be fined not more than $500, imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.(e) A person that knowingly discloses confidential data made available to such person under section 11163 of this title by a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall be fined not more than $50,000.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 851; amended Pub. L. 105–102, § 2(6), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2204.)Historical and Revision Notes Pub. L. 105–102

This amends 49:11904(a)(2) to correct a grammatical error.

Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11910 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

A prior section 11904, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1457; Pub. L. 99–521, § 13(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2998, related to additional rate and discrimination violations, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See section 14904 of this title.

Amendments

1997—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 105–102 struck out “a” before “person”.

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 5 cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: In Re Union Pac. R.R., 294 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Union Pac. R.R., 294 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. 2009). “, 49 U.S.C. § 11904 (prohibiting railroads from disclosing “information about the contents of a contract authorized under [49 U.”

In Re Appeal of Vermont Ry., 769 A.2d 648 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2× “It made the condition more circumscribed to allow for the City to monitor compliance, but to also avoid a potential conflict with 49 U.S.C. § 11904 , which, although making an exception for agents of a state, *504 prohibits disclosing information about the “nature, kind,…”

Qwest Commc'ns Int'l Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 229 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “§ 20 (7)(Q (1976) (current version at 49 U.S.C. §§ 11904 , 14908, 16103 (1994 ed.”

The Blacklands R.R. v. Ne. Texas Rural Rail Transp. Dist. (E.D. Tex. 2019). “klands’ competitors; (2) anticipatorily repudiated the Operating Agreement; (3) falsely published disparaging statements regarding Blacklands’ capabilities; (4) misappropriated Blacklands’ trade secrets; (5) tortiously interfered with Blacklands’ contract with Union Pacific…”

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.