42 U.S.C. § 1802

STREAMLINING OF COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Rulemaking.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 24, 1992], the Commission shall issue a final rule to streamline procedures of the Commission relating to oil pipeline rates in order to avoid unnecessary regulatory costs and delays.“(b)Scope of Rulemaking.—Issues to be considered in the rulemaking proceeding to be conducted under subsection (a) shall include the following:“(1) Identification of information to be filed with an oil pipeline tariff and the availability to the public of any analysis of such tariff filing performed by the Commission or its staff.“(2) Qualification for standing (including definitions of economic interest) of parties who protest oil pipeline tariff filings or file complaints thereto.“(3) The level of specificity required for a protest or complaint and guidelines for Commission action on the portion of the tariff or rate filing subject to protest or complaint.“(4) An opportunity for the oil pipeline to file a response for the record to an initial protest or complaint.“(5) Identification of specific circumstances under which Commission staff may initiate a protest.“(c)Additional Procedural Changes.—In conducting the rulemaking proceeding to carry out subsection (a), the Commission shall identify and transmit to Congress any other procedural changes relating to oil pipeline rates which the Commission determines are necessary to avoid unnecessary regulatory costs and delays and for which additional legislative authority may be necessary.“(d)Withdrawal of Tariffs and Complaints.—“(1)Withdrawal of tariffs.—If an oil pipeline tariff which is filed under part I of the Interstate Commerce Act [former 49 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] and which is subject to investigation is withdrawn—“(A) any proceeding with respect to such tariff shall be terminated;“(B) the previous tariff rate shall be reinstated; and“(C) any amounts collected under the withdrawn tariff rate which are in excess of the previous tariff rate shall be refunded.“(2)Withdrawal of complaints.—If a complaint which is filed under section 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act [former 49 U.S.C. 13] with respect to an oil pipeline tariff is withdrawn, any proceeding with respect to such complaint shall be terminated.“(e)Alternative Dispute Resolution.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Commission shall establish appropriate alternative dispute resolution procedures, including required negotiations and voluntary arbitration, early in an oil pipeline rate proceeding as a method preferable to adjudication in resolving disputes relating to the rate. Any proposed rates derived from implementation of such procedures shall be considered by the Commission on an expedited basis for approval.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1957–1976 · leading case: Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 298 (Ct. Cl. 1957).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 298 (Ct. Cl. 1957). · cites it 2× “765 , and Executive Order 9816, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1802 note, it was transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission.”

Bramer v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 569 (C.D. Cal. 1976). “The United States Atomic Energy Commission, as of July 31, 1971, was a Federal executive agency created by 42 U.S.C. § 1802 (a)(1), although it was abolished and is now known as the Energy Research and Development Administration, “ERDA,” which was created by the Energy…”

Applicability of Exec. Privilege to Indep. Regulatory Agencies (OLC 1957). “§ 41 (Federal Trade Commission); 42 U.S.C. § 1802 (Atomic Energy Com- mission); 49 U.”

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.