C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER V—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › PART 552—PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING, DEFECT, AND NONCOMPLIANCE ORDERS › Subpart A—General

49 C.F.R. § 552.3

General

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

Any interested person may file with the Administrator a petition requesting him:

(a) To commence a proceeding respecting the issuance, amendment or revocation of a motor vehicle safety standard, or

(b) To commence a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order concerning the notification and remedy of a failure of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or a defect in such vehicle or equipment that relates to motor vehicle safety.

[60 FR 17267, Apr. 5, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Kepple, 970 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Kepple, 970 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. 1998). · cites it 2× “[34] 49 C.F.R. § 552.3 (1997). [35] 49 C.F.R. § 510.”
Air Brake Sys., Inc. v. Norman Y. Mineta, in His Capacity as Sec'y of Transp. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2004). “And more importantly (and perhaps more realistically for smaller companies), the company remains free to petition NHTSA to alter Standard 121 under the agency’s rulemaking powers.”
Intermodal Tech., Inc. v. Mineta, 413 F. Supp. 2d 834 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 552.3 (a) (‘Any interested party may file with the Administrator a petition requesting him .”
Littel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “§§ 30118 (b)(2); 49 C.F.R. § 552.3 , “Congress provided a federal remedy and enforcement mechanism directly to consumers, including plaintiffs, who feel that any component of a car, including its tires, may pose a safety risk.”
Michelotti v. United States, 557 F. App'x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “§ 30162 (a)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 552.3 . Should that petition be denied, judicial review in a designated court other than the Court of Federal Claims may then be available.”
Air Brake Sys v. Mineta (6th Cir. 2004). “49 C.F.R. § 552.3 (a) (“Any with respect to the opinions expressed in them, they do interested party may file with the Administrator a petition represent final agency action in another respect—namely, as requesting him .”
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.