50 C.F.R. § 228.4

Notice of hearing

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

(a) A notice of hearing on any proposed regulations shall be published in the Federal Register, together with the Assistant Administrator's proposed determination to waive the moratorium pursuant to section 101(a)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(3)(A)), where applicable.

(b) The notice shall state:

(1) The nature of the hearing;

(2) The place and date of the hearing. The date shall not be less than 60 days after publication of notice of the hearing;

(3) The legal authority under which the hearing is to be held;

(4) The proposed regulations and waiver, where applicable, and a summary of the statements required by section 103(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1373(d));

(5) Issues of fact which may be involved in the hearing;

(6) If a draft Environmental Impact Statement is required, the date of publication of the draft and the place(s) where the draft and comments thereon may be viewed and copied;

(7) Any written advice received from the Marine Mammal Commission;

(8) The place(s) where records and submitted direct testimony will be kept for public inspection;

(9) The final date for filing with the Assistant Administrator a notice of intent to participate in the hearing pursuant to § 228.5;

(10) The final date for submission of direct testimony on the proposed regulations and waiver, if applicable, and the number of copies required;

(11) The docket number assigned to the case which shall be used in all subsequent proceedings; and

(12) The place and date of the pre-hearing conference.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1994–1994 · leading case: Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 857 F. Supp. 734 (C.D. Cal. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 857 F. Supp. 734 (C.D. Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 50 C.F.R. § 228.4 . 2. Violation of MMPA The plaintiffs contend that the Final Rule and the Letter of Authorization both violate the MMPA because NMFS failed to adequately consider alternative sites in determining that a test in the planned area will cause the “least…”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Us Dept. of Navy, 857 F. Supp. 734 (C.D. Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “" 50 C.F.R. § 228.4 . 2. Violation of MMPA The plaintiffs contend that the Final Rule and the Letter of Authorization both violate the MMPA because NMFS failed to adequately consider alternative sites in determining that a test in the planned area will cause the "least…”

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.