49 C.F.R. § 107.211

Petition for reconsideration

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

(a) Any person aggrieved by a determination issued under § 107.209 may file a petition for reconsideration. The petition must be filed with the Chief Counsel, in the same manner specified for filing an application in § 107.203(b), within 20 days of publication of the determination in the Federal Register.

(b) The petition must contain a concise statement of the basis for seeking review, including any specific factual or legal error alleged. If the petition requests consideration of information that was not previously made available to the Chief Counsel, the petition must include the reasons why such information was not previously made available.

(c) The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to each person who participated, either as an applicant or commenter, in the preemption determination proceeding, accompanied by a statement that the person may submit comments concerning the petition to the Chief Counsel within 20 days. The petition filed with the Chief Counsel must contain a certification that the petitioner has complied with this paragraph and include the names and addresses of all persons to whom a copy of the petition was sent. Late-filed comments are considered so far as practicable.

(d) The Chief Counsel will publish the decision on the petition for reconsideration or notice of the decision in the Federal Register, at which time the decision on the petition for reconsideration becomes a final agency action.

[Amdt. 107-25, 57 FR 20428, May 13, 1992, as amended by Amdt. 107-38, 61 FR 21099, May 9, 1996; 71 FR 30067, May 25, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1982–2003 · leading case: Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 509 (D.R.I. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 509 (D.R.I. 1982). “Inconsistency Ruling (IR-2), of the Department of Transportation’s MTB was af *514 firmed upon appeal under the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 107.211 (1980) and issued October 17, 1980.”

Tennessee v. United States Dep't of Transp., 326 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2003). “See 49 C.F.R. § 107.211 . The State of Tennessee argues that the petition for reconsideration functions as the equivalent of a legal appeal, differentiating this procedure from the standard rule-making process.”

S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Nevada, 909 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1990). “PSC filed an appeal of IR-19 with the Administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 107.211 . On April 1, 1988, the Administrator issued a decision affirming the inconsistency ruling.”

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.