49 U.S.C. § 30161

Judicial review of standards

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Filing and Venue.—A person adversely affected by an order prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. The petition must be filed not later than 59 days after the order is issued.(b)Notifying Secretary.—The clerk of the court shall send immediately a copy of the petition to the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary shall file with the court a record of the proceeding in which the order was prescribed.(c)Additional Proceedings.—(1) On request of the petitioner, the court may order the Secretary to receive additional evidence and evidence in rebuttal if the court is satisfied that the additional evidence is material and there were reasonable grounds for not presenting the evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary.(2) The Secretary may modify findings of fact or make new findings because of the additional evidence presented. The Secretary shall file a modified or new finding, a recommendation to modify or set aside the order, and the additional evidence with the court.(d)Certified Copies of Records of Proceedings.—The Secretary shall give any interested person a certified copy of the transcript of the record in a proceeding under this section on request and payment of costs. A certified copy of the record of the proceeding is admissible in a proceeding arising out of a matter under this chapter, regardless of whether the proceeding under this section has begun or becomes final.(e)Finality of Judgment and Supreme Court Review.—A judgment of a court under this section is final and may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court under section 1254 of title 28.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 966.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
30161(a)	15:1394(a)(1) (1st sentence), (3).	Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, § 105(a)(1)–(5), (b), 80 Stat. 720, 721.
30161(b)	15:1394(a)(1) (2d, last sentences).
30161(c)	15:1394(a)(2).
30161(d)	15:1394(b).
30161(e)	15:1394(a)(4), (5).

In subsection (a), the words “In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of” and “who will be . . . when it is effective” are omitted as surplus. The words “an order prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter” are substituted for “any order under section 1392 of this title” for consistency. The words “apply for review” are added for clarity. The words “The petition must be filed” are substituted for “at any time” for clarity. The text of 15:1394(a)(3) is omitted as surplus because 5:ch. 7 applies unless otherwise stated.

In subsection (b), the words “or other officer designated by him for that purpose” are omitted as surplus because of 49:322(b). The words “in which the order was prescribed” are substituted for “on which the Secretary based his order” for consistency. The words “as provided in section 2112 of title 28” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (c)(1), the words “in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper” are omitted as surplus. The words “is satisfied” are substituted for “shows to the satisfaction of” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “and to be adduced upon the hearing” are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c)(2), the words “with the court” are substituted for “the return of” for clarity.

In subsection (d), the words “thereof” and “criminal, exclusion of imports, or other” are omitted as surplus. The words “under this section” are substituted for “with respect to the order” for clarity. The word “previously” is omitted as surplus.

In subsection (e), the words “under this section is final and may be reviewed only” are substituted for “affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Secretary shall be final, subject to review” to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 15:1394(a)(5) is omitted because of rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Delta Constr. Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 783 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delta Constr. Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 783 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “In Public Citizen, we examined the scope of 49 U.S.C. § 30161 , which relates to NHTSA safety standards, and held that the statute did not authorize the court of appeals to entertain in the first instance challenges regarding petitions for rule-making.”

Pub. Citizen Inc. v. Mineta, 343 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 9× “Under 49 U.S.C. § 30161 : A person adversely affected by an order prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person…”

California Energy Comm'n v. Dep't of Energy, 585 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2009). “49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a). However, denials of requests to initiate proceedings to consider orders or rules are clearly governed by 49 U.”

Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “The tire industry petitioners point to 49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a) as such a direct-review statute for NHTSA decisions.”

Contini by Contini v. Hyundai Motor Co., 876 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 4× “See 49 U.S.C.A. § 30161 (West 1994) 8 ; see also Nader v.”

Air Brake Sys., Inc. v. Mineta, 202 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “Further, if the plaintiff desires to challenge in court a rule relating to motor vehicle safety standards, it must seek review “in the [appropriate] court of appeals,” 49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a), which has exclusive jurisdiction over such challenges.”

WildEarth Guardians v. Chao, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (D. Mont. 2019). “49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a). The D.C. Circuit recognized, however, that 49 U.”

United States v. Chrysler Corp., 995 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1998). “See 49 U.S.C. § 30161 . However, the government's initiation of-this action pursuant to 49 U.”

Washington v. Dep't of Transp., 84 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1996). “§§ 1 , 1394(a)(1) (establishing fifty-nine day period for seeking judicial review of motor vehicle safety standards, now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a)); see also General Motors Corp.”

Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 513 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “The tire industry petitioners point to 49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a) as such a direct-review statute for NHTSA decisions.”

Michelotti v. United States, 557 F. App'x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “But, as to the order promulgating the relevant aspect of Standard 108, he makes no claim that he filed this suit within 59 days of that order, as required by 49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a). And as to any NHTSA decision regarding modifying the Standard, there is no final agency action…”

Ca Energy Comm'n v. Doe (9th Cir. 2009). “49 U.S.C. § 30161 (a). However, denials of requests to initiate proceed- ings to consider orders or rules are clearly governed by 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.