49 C.F.R. § 179.5

Certificate of construction

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

(a) Before a tank car is placed in service, the party assembling the completed car shall furnish a Certificate of Construction, Form AAR 4-2 to the owner and the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR, certifying that the tank, equipment, and car fully conforms to all requirements of the specification.

(b) When cars or tanks are covered in one application and are identical in all details are built in series, one certificate will suffice for each series when submitted to the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR.

(c) If the owner elects to furnish service equipment, the owner shall furnish the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR, a report in prescribed form, certifying that the service equipment complies with all the requirements of the specifications.

(d) When cars or tanks which are covered on one application and are identical in all details are built in series, one certificate shall suffice for each series when submitted to the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR. One copy of the Certificate of Construction must be furnished to the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR for each car number of consecutively numbered group or groups covered by the original application.

[Amdt. 179-10, 36 FR 21344, Nov. 6, 1971, as amended at 63 FR 52850, Oct. 1, 1998; 68 FR 48571, Aug. 14, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1965–2005 · leading case: Rucker v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 381 N.E.2d 715 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rucker v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 381 N.E.2d 715 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978). · cites it 2× “We also note that these regulations require a manufacturer to certify a tank car, and all equipment appurtenant thereto, as meeting all specifications before it is placed into service ( 49 CFR § 179.5 (a)). GATX maintains that these sections connote that a design feature which…”

Mayor & City of Baltimore v. CSX Transp., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 2d 869 (D. Maryland 2005). “See 49 C.F.R. § 179.5 . Specific procedures are identified for repairs and alternations.”

A. L. Root Transp., Inc. v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 152 (D. Vt. 1968). · cites it 2× “” In their petition, plaintiffs alleged upon information and belief that the transferred operating rights had been dormant within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 179.5 (b) 2 and were thus not susceptible of transfer.”

Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 269 (E.D. Pa. 1965). “…conducted under the operating right for a period of 6 months preceding the date of the request for such evidence. 49 C.F.R. § 179.5 (b).”

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.