49 C.F.R. § 1.101

Delegations to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Administrator

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

The Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is delegated authority to:

(a) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of section 2 of the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471) [33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, 1227, and 1231-1232] as they relate to the operation of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

(b) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 and section 8(a) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731) [33 U.S.C. 535c and 535e(a)] as it relates to the Saint Lawrence River.

(c) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 3(d) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships [33 U.S.C. 1902e] as it relates to ships owned or operated by the Corporation when engaged in noncommercial service.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1951–1970 · leading case: E. Cent. Motor Carriers Ass'n v. United States, 239 F. Supp. 591 (D.D.C. 1965).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

E. Cent. Motor Carriers Ass'n v. United States, 239 F. Supp. 591 (D.D.C. 1965). · cites it 2× “This may well be; but my difficulty is that this does not undermine the compensativeness of the particular rates with which this case is concerned.”

Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 258 F. Supp. 910 (D. Del. 1966). · cites it 4× “See Rule 101(a) (4)-(5), 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (a) (4)-(6). In an effort to obtain such a review, plaintiff petitioned the Commission to make a general transportation importance finding.”

N. Valley Transfer, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 192 F. Supp. 600 (D.N.J. 1961). · cites it 2× “Rule 101(e) of the Commission’s General Rules of Practice, 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (e) adopted under the authority of the above cited section, provides that “Except for good cause shown, and upon leave granted” a petition for rehearing, reargument, or reconsideration “must be filed…”

Davis & Randall, Inc. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 673 (W.D.N.Y. 1963). · cites it 2× “[8] An additional factor in the instant case is that the petition for rehearing or reconsideration seems to have been acted on by the full Commission the filing of the petition having antedated the amendment of 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (a) (Supp.1962), 26 F.R.”

Nat'l Water Carriers Ass'n v. United States, 126 F. Supp. 87 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). “See 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (e). Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the statutory condition precedent to judicial review of the order of May.”

United States v. S. Ry. Co., 380 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1967). “” 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (e) (1903). Of course, it is within the Commission’s discretion to entertain the petition, and we intimate no view as to how this discretion should be exercised.”

Riss & Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 468 (W.D. Mo. 1951). “” The Rules of the Commission provide ( 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (e): “Except for good cause shown, and upon leave granted, petitions under this section must be filed within 30 days after the date of service of a decision or order granting an application in whole or in part, and within…”

Bell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 209 (S.D.W. Va 1969). “” Reference is there made to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, particularly 49 C.F.R., Section 1.101(f) and (g), relating to reconsideration of inner-agency action prior to issuance of the Commission’s order.”

Resort Bus Lines, Inc. v. the Interstate Com. Comm'n, 264 F. Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). “Resort also refers us to 49 C.F.R., § 1.101 (g), which provides, in part, that “When an appellate division has denied a petition seeking reversal, change, or modification of an original determination by a board * * * any further petition *746 for reconsideration by the same…”

Cardinale Trucking Co. v. United States, 232 F. Supp. 339 (D.N.J. 1964). “…of argument and attached exhibits setting forth factual proofs. 8 . Referring to previous petitions filed, 9 . 49 C.F.R. 1.101(e).”

Chicago S. Shore & S. Bend Rr v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. Ind. 1963). · cites it 2× “101(a) of the Commission's General Rules of Practice ( 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (a)) and therefore the Secretary's refusal to file the plaintiff's petition for reconsideration was proper under the Commission's revised procedure limiting the right to apply for reconsideration.”

United States v. S. Ry. Co., 250 F. Supp. 759 (D.S.C. 1966). “101(3) of the General Rules of Practice of the Interstate Commerce Commission (49 C. F.R. § 1.101(3)) permits a petition for rehearing, reargument or reconsideration somehow detract from Southern’s right to assert the defense of invalidity in this penalty proceeding.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 49 C.F.R. § 1.101(3) — 1 case

— 49 C.F.R. § 1.101(a) — 2 cases

Chicago & North W. Ry. Co. v. United States, 311 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Ill. 1970).

Tri-B Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 253 F. Supp. 715 (S.D. Iowa 1966).

— 49 C.F.R. § 1.101(b) — 3 cases

Chicago S. Shore & S. Bend Rr v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. Ind. 1963). “101(a) of the Commission's General Rules of Practice ( 49 C.F.R. § 1.101 (a)) and therefore the Secretary's refusal to file the plaintiff's petition for reconsideration was proper under the Commission's revised procedure limiting the right to apply for reconsideration.”

Chicago South Shore & South Bend R.R. v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. Ind. 1963).

Midwest Emery Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 295 F. Supp. 112 (N.D. Ill. 1968).

— 49 C.F.R. § 1.101(e) — 2 cases

Bradley v. United States, 268 F. Supp. 871 (D. Conn. 1967).

— 49 C.F.R. § 1.101(f) — 1 case

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.