49 C.F.R. § 1105.1
Purpose
These rules are designed to assure adequate consideration of environmental and energy factors in the Board's decisionmaking process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332; the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6362(b); and related laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451, and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1998–2017 · leading case: Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth.
Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth. (2017)
“( 49 C.F.R §§ 1105.1 - 1105.12 (2016) ; see especially id .”
Soo Line Railroad v. City of Minneapolis (1998)
“See 49 C.F.R. § 1105.1 ("These rules are designed to assure adequate consideration of environmental and energy factors in the Board's decisionmaking process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act .”
Flynn v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.(BNSF) (2000)
“See, 49 C.F.R. § 1105.1 . Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot raise a claim under NEPA or the ICCTA so no federal question jurisdiction exists.”
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.