C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FMCSA PROCEEDINGS › Subpart E—Decision

49 C.F.R. § 386.67

Judicial review

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

(a) Any party to the underlying proceeding, who, after an administrative adjudication, is adversely affected by a Final Agency Order issued under 49 U.S.C. 521 may, within 30 days of service of the Final Agency Order, petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals in the circuit where the violation is alleged to have occurred, or where the violator has its principal place of business or residence, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(b) Judicial review will be based on a determination of whether the findings and conclusions in the Final Agency Order were supported by substantial evidence or were otherwise not in accordance with law. No objection that has not been raised before the Agency will be considered by the court, unless reasonable grounds existed for failure or neglect to do so. The commencement of proceedings under this section will not, unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Final Agency Order of the Agency.

[70 FR 28485, May 18, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Haines v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 814 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Haines v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 814 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a) (emphasis added). This language mirrors that of the related statutory provision: 49 U.”
Dandino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 729 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a), parrots the text of § 529(b)(9), except that it addresses the ambiguity by explaining that a party may petition a court of appeal for review “within 30 days of service of the Final Agency Order.”
Everett v. 357 Corp., 21 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1362 (Mass. 2009). “If the driver disagrees with the DOT’S determination, he is entitled to judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals, 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (2008), which has “exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of .”
Cardiosom, L.L.C. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 761 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 2× “The regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a), parrots the text of [ 49 U.”
B & H Med., LLC v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 671 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 2× “The regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a), parrots the text of [ 49 U.”
Bryson v. United States, 381 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 3× “§ 521 (b)(9) (emphasis added); 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a) ("Any party to the underlying proceeding, who, after an administrative adjudication , is adversely affected by a Final Agency Order .”
William Spencer & Spencer Bros. LLC v. P Michael Doran, et al., 2021 DNH 023 (D.N.H. 2021). “§ 521 (b)(9); 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a); see also Pornomo v.”
Bryson v. United States (D. Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 521 (b)(9) (emphasis added); 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a) (“Any party to the underlying proceeding, who, after an administrative adjudication, is adversely affected by a Final Agency Order .”
Spencer v. NH State Police (D.N.H. 2021). “§ 521 (b)(9); 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 (a); see also Pornomo v.”
United States v. Murtana, 172 F. App'x 468 (3rd Cir. 2006). “However, in his letter to this Court, dated August 19, 2004, Murtana clarified his intent to file a petition for review of the agency’s final order, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 386.67 of the FMCSA’s regulations.”
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.