C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER X—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER B—RULES OF PRACTICE › PART 1109—USE OF MEDIATION IN BOARD PROCEEDINGS

49 C.F.R. § 1109.1

Mediation statement of purpose, organization, and jurisdiction

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

The Board favors the resolution of disputes through the use of mediation and arbitration procedures, in lieu of formal Board proceedings, whenever possible. Parties may seek to resolve a dispute brought before the Board using the Board's mediation procedures. These procedures shall not be available in a regulatory proceeding to obtain the grant, denial, stay or revocation of a request for construction, abandonment, purchase, trackage rights, merger, pooling authority or exemption related to such matters. The Board may, by its own order, direct the parties to participate in mediation using the Board's mediation procedures. The Board's mediation program is open to all parties eligible to bring or defend matters before the Board.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1977–1987 · leading case: Central Power & Light Co. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Central Power & Light Co. v. United States (1980) ca5 · cites it 12× “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of “market dominance” as defined by § 10709(a).”
Central Power and Light Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, State of Texas v. United Sta (1980) ca5 · cites it 5× “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of "market dominance" as defined by 10709(a).”
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States (1977) ca8 “" It appears from an analysis of these sections that the Commission’s duty to make a finding of market dominance before finding a rate to be unjust or unreasonable arises only in proceedings begun after promulgation of the standards required by § 202(b) of the 4-R Act.”
National Ass'n of Recycling Industries, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1978) cadc · cites it 2× “153-72; (2) the Commission’s recently promulgated market dominance regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 1109.1 , 41 Fed.Reg. 44183 (1976); and (3) the Commission’s recent decision in San Antonio, Texas, Acting By and Through Its City Public Service Board v.”
Burlington Northern Inc. v. United States (1981) cadc “The railroads argue, among other things, that the Act deprived the Commission of jurisdiction because (1) the ALJ and Board in determining the “market dominance” of the railroads relied exclusively upon the showing that the rate’s revenue-variable cost ratio exceeded 160…”
Central Power and Light Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, State of Texas v. United Sta (1981) ca5 “320 Rail Market Dominance and Related Considerations (December 11, 1980) removed the then existing regulations concerning market dominance found at 49 C.F.R. Part 1109.1. Ex parte No. 320, (Sub-No.”
Central Power & Light Co. v. United States (1981) ca5 “320 Rail Market Dominance and Related Considerations (December 11, 1980) removed the then existing regulations concerning market dominance found at 49 C.F.R. Part 1109.1. Ex parte No. 320, (Sub-No.”
General Chemical Corp. v. United States (1987) cadc “” Market Dominance Determinations, 365 ICC at 119.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1109.1(f) — 2 cases
Central Power & Light Co. v. United States (1980) ca5 “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of “market dominance” as defined by § 10709(a).”
Central Power and Light Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, State of Texas v. United Sta (1980) ca5 “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of "market dominance" as defined by 10709(a).”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1109.1(g) — 2 cases
Central Power & Light Co. v. United States (1980) ca5 “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of “market dominance” as defined by § 10709(a).”
Central Power and Light Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, State of Texas v. United Sta (1980) ca5 “The regulations requiring interpretation are found at 49 C.F.R. 1109.1 and establish rebuttable presumptions of "market dominance" as defined by 10709(a).”
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.