49 C.F.R. § 604.50
Judicial review of a final decision and order
(a) A person may seek judicial review in an appropriate United States District Court of a final decision and order of the Administrator as provided in 5 U.S.C. 701-706. A party seeking judicial review of a final decision and order shall file a petition for review with the Court not later than 60 days after a final decision and order is effective.
(b) The following do not constitute final decisions and orders subject to judicial review:
(1) FTA's decision to dismiss a complaint as set forth in § 604.29;
(2) A recommended decision issued by a PO at the conclusion of a hearing; or
(3) A Chief Counsel decision that becomes the final decision of the Administrator because it was not appealed within the stated timeframes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2009–2011 · leading case: Am. Bus Ass'n v. Rogoff, 649 F.3d 734 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Am. Bus Ass'n v. Rogoff, 649 F.3d 734 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “See 49 C.F.R. § 604.50 (a). Although the Transit Act’s Charter Rule dates to 1973, Seattle’s public transportation system, King County Metro (KCM), began providing special local bus service to Seattle Mariners baseball games in the late 1990s and continued this service for more…”
United Motorcoach Ass'n, Inc. v. Welbes, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009). “49 C.F.R. § 604.50 ; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 .”
Am. Bus Ass'n, Inc. v. Rogoff, 717 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2010). “1999) (“[t]he FTA Act does not create a private right of action,” but prior version of 49 C.F.R. § 604.50 permitted, through the APA, judicial review of administrator’s decision on complaints).”
United Motorcoach Ass'n, Inc. v. Rogoff (D.D.C. 2010). “at 15 (The Court: “Effectively, the 20 At oral argument, defendants speculated that even under the Murray Amendment, the FTA could issue an advisory opinion stating its position on whether KCM had violated the Charter Rule but also noting its inability to enforce that position…”
United Motorcoach Ass'n, Inc. v. Simpson (D.D.C. 2009). “49 C.F.R. § 604.50 ; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 .”
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.