49 U.S.C. § 30162

Petitions by interested persons for standards and enforcement

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

(a)Filing.—Any interested person may file a petition with the Secretary of Transportation requesting the Secretary to begin a proceeding—(1) to prescribe a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter; or(2) to decide whether to issue an order under section 30118(b) of this title.(b)Statement of Facts.—A petition under this section must state facts that the person claims establish that a motor vehicle safety standard or order referred to in subsection (a) of this section is necessary and briefly describe the order the Secretary should issue.(c)Proceedings.—The Secretary may hold a public hearing or conduct an investigation or proceeding to decide whether to grant a petition under this section.(d)Actions of Secretary.—(1)In general.—The Secretary shall determine whether to approve or deny a petition under this section by not later than 120 days after the petition is filed.(2)Approval.—If a petition under this section is approved, the Secretary shall begin the proceeding promptly.(3)Denial.—If a petition under this section is denied, the Secretary shall publish the reasons for the denial in the Federal Register.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 967; Pub. L. 117–58, div. B, title IV, § 24206, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 822.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
30162(a)	15:1410a(a).	Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, 80 Stat. 718, § 124(a)–(d); added Oct. 27, 1974, Pub. L. 93–492, § 106, 88 Stat. 1481.
30162(b)	15:1410a(b).
30162(c)	15:1410a(c).
30162(d)	15:1410a(d).

Subsection (a)(1) is substituted for “the issuance of an order pursuant to section 1392 of this title” for clarity and because of the restatement.

In subsection (b), the words “a motor vehicle safety standard” are added because of the restatement. The words “referred to in subsection (a) of this section” are added for clarity. The words “of the substance” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (c), the words “as he deems appropriate in order” and “or not” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (d), the words “described in subsection (b) of this section”, “either”, and “requested in the petition” are omitted as surplus.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(1), substituted “A petition under this section” for “The petition”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(2), substituted “a petition under this section” for “the petition”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(3), designated first to third sentences of existing provisions as pars. (1) to (3), respectively, and inserted headings.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(3)(C), substituted “The Secretary shall determine whether to approve or deny a petition under this section by” for “The Secretary shall grant or deny a petition”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(3)(B), substituted “If a petition under this section is approved” for “If a petition is granted”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 117–58, § 24206(3)(A), substituted “If a petition under this section” for “If a petition”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Ctr. for Auto Saf., Inc. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ctr. for Auto Saf., Inc. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2); 49 C.F.R. §§ 552.”

Kia Motors Am. Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2). A NHTSA recall would reach the "uninjured" class members in this case.”

Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6722 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “( 49 U.S.C. § 30162 .) If it is determined that the vehicle contains a defect, an order may issue directing the manufacturer to remedy it.”

Wilks v. Ford Motor Co., 174 F.R.D. 332 (D.N.J. 1997). “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2). In the MDL ease, 23 million plaintiffs seek relief for an alleged defect that has not yet manifested itself or caused damage in their vehicles.”

Chin v. Chrysler Corp., 182 F.R.D. 448 (D.N.J. 1998). “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2). Most of the Plaintiffs have not suffered ABS failure, and seek relief for an alleged defect that has not yet manifested itself or caused damage in their vehicles.”

Ayres v. Gen. Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000). “See 49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a). Furthermore, the Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action to enforce the Safety Act and the notification obligations.”

Johnson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC, 285 F.R.D. 573 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “Plaintiffs, or any interested party, can petition NHTSA to investigate the alleged safety issues, and if NHTSA finds that motorcycles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, it is required by law to order Defendants to recall the motorcycles to fix the defect.”

Burgo v. Volkswagen of Am., 183 F. Supp. 2d 683 (D.N.J. 2001). “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2). The Defendants concede, however, that a petition filing is the only way for the Plaintiffs to “inject themselves” into the recall process.”

Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 292 F.R.D. 252 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(2). Most of the Plaintiffs have not suffered ABS failure, and seek relief for an alleged defect that has not yet manifested itself or caused damage in their vehicles.”

Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Moreover, as the Secretary points out, the section of the statute providing for petitions to initiate NHTSA rulemak-ings underscores the distinction between an order prescribing a safety standard on the one hand and an order denying a petition for rulemaking on the other.”

WildEarth Guardians v. Chao, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (D. Mont. 2019). “Circuit recognized, however, that 49 U.S.C. § 30162 (a)(1) governs denials of requests to initiate proceedings or consider orders or rules.”

In Re bridgestone/firestone Tires Prods. Liab., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ind. 2002). “See 49 U.S.C. § 30162 . Ford, however, cites to no case where public participation in administrative hearings is regarded as akin to a private right of action for the purpose of conferring federal question jurisdiction on a state-law claim that refers to federal law.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.