§ 10701 — Standards For Rates, Classifications, Through Routes, Rules, And Practices

(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. (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, (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.