C.F.R. » Title 46 » CHAPTER IV—FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › PART 502—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart E—Private Complaints and Commission Investigations

46 C.F.R. § 502.64

Alternative dispute resolution

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

(a) Mandatory preliminary conference. (1) Participation. Subsequent to service of a Complaint, parties must participate in a preliminary conference with the Commission's Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) as to whether the matter may be resolved through mediation. The preliminary conference may be conducted either in person or via telephone, video conference, or other forum.

(2) Timing. Within fifteen (15) days of the filing of an answer, the parties must contact the Director of CADRS to schedule the preliminary conference. The Director of CADRS or his/her designees will conduct the preliminary conference and may confer with each party separately at any time.

(b) Continued availability of dispute resolution services to resolve procedural and other disputes. Pursuant to subpart U of this part, the parties mutually may agree, at any time prior to the termination of a Commission proceeding, to initiate or reopen a mediation proceeding to explore resolution of procedural or substantive issues.

(c) Proceeding not stayed during dispute resolution process. Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer, a mediation proceeding does not stay or delay the procedural time requirements set forth by rule or order of the presiding officer.

(d) Confidentiality. The preliminary conference will be confidential. [Rule 64.]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1979–1979 · leading case: Capitol Transp., Inc. v. United States & Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 612 F.2d 1312 (1st Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Capitol Transp., Inc. v. United States & Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 612 F.2d 1312 (1st Cir. 1979). “46 C.F.R. § 502.64 (1978). Moreover, when joining other respondents in the earlier filed motions to dismiss, Capitol seemed, tacitly at least, to have conceded NVOCC status.”
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.