14 C.F.R. § 302.14

Petitions for reconsideration

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Department orders subject to reconsideration; time for filing. (1) Unless an order or a rule of the Department specifically provides otherwise:

(i) Any interested person may file a petition for reconsideration of any interlocutory order issued by the Department that institutes a proceeding; and

(ii) Any party to a proceeding may file a petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument of final orders issued by the Department (See § 302.38), or an interlocutory order that defines the scope and issues of a proceeding or suspends a provision of a tariff on file with the Department.

(2) Unless otherwise provided, petitions for reconsideration shall be filed, in the case of a final order, within twenty (20) days after service thereof, and, in the case of an interlocutory order, within ten (10) days after service. However, neither the filing nor the granting of such a petition shall operate as a stay of such final or interlocutory order unless specifically so ordered by the DOT decisionmaker. Within ten (10) days after a petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument is filed, any party to the proceeding may file an answer in support of or in opposition. Motions for extension of time to file a petition or answer, and for leave to file a petition or answer after the time for the filing has expired, will not be granted except on a showing of unusual and exceptional circumstances, constituting good cause for the movant's inability to meet the established procedural dates.

(b) Contents of petition. A petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument shall state, briefly and specifically, the matters of record alleged to have been erroneously decided, the ground relied upon, and the relief sought. If a decision by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary is requested, the petition should describe in detail the reasons for such request and specify any important national transportation policy issues that are presented. If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on allegations as to the consequences that would result from the final order, the basis of such allegations shall be set forth. If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on new matter, such new matter shall be set forth, accompanied by a statement to the effect that petitioner, with due diligence, could not have known or discovered such new matter prior to the date the case was submitted for decision. Unless otherwise directed by the DOT decisionmaker upon a showing of unusual or exceptional circumstances, petitions for reconsideration, rehearing or reargument or answers thereto that exceed twenty-five (25) pages (including appendices) in length shall not be accepted for filing by Department of Transportation Dockets.

(c) Successive petitions. A successive petition for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration filed by the same party or person, and upon substantially the same ground as a former petition that has been considered or denied will not be entertained.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1967–1994 · leading case: Atx, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Intervenors, 41 F.3d 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atx, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Intervenors, 41 F.3d 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Congressional opposition recurred during the hearing when the ALJ allowed Congressman Michael “Mac” Collins to testify pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.14 . That rule allows “any person” to participate in a DOT hearing.”

Pepsico, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Corvallis, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 472 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1972). “Agencies could well consider revision of their rules on intervention to distinguish between persons whose property rights are at stake and are thus entitled to all the rights of a party, and persons with a more generalized interest, a sort of super amici curiae, whose…”

The Palisades Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Washington Airways, Inc., Intervenor, 420 F.2d 188 (D.C. Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “15 (1968) 2 or as interested persons under Rule 14 of the Rules, 14 C.F.R. § 302.14 (1968). 3 They asserted, basically, that inquiry into these areas of public inconvenience and hazard was most relevant to the Board’s statutory study as set out in 49 U.”

City of San Antonio v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 374 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1967). “Rule 14(b), 14 C.F.R. § 302.14 (b), reads: “ (b) Participation in hearings.”

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.