U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE V— RAIL PROGRAMS › Part PART E— MISCELLANEOUS › Chapter CHAPTER 281— LAW ENFORCEMENT

49 U.S.C. § 304

COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Membership.—“(1)Total membership.—The Agreement should provide for the Commission to be composed of 24 members, of which 12 members are appointed by the President and 12 members are appointed by the Government of Canada.“(2)General qualifications.—The Agreement should provide for the membership of the Commission, to the maximum extent practicable, to be representative of—“(A) the interests of the local communities (including the governments of the communities), aboriginal peoples, and businesses that would be affected by the connection of the rail system in Alaska to the North American continental rail system; and“(B) a broad range of expertise in areas of knowledge that are relevant to the significant issues to be considered by the Commission, including economics, engineering, management of resources, social sciences, fish and game management, environmental sciences, and transportation.“(b)United States Membership.—If the United States and Canada enter into an agreement providing for the establishment of the Commission, the President shall appoint the United States members of the Commission as follows:“(1) Two members from among persons who are qualified to represent the interests of communities and local governments of Alaska.“(2) One member representing the State of Alaska, to be nominated by the Governor of Alaska.“(3) One member from among persons who are qualified to represent the interests of Native Alaskans residing in the area of Alaska that would be affected by the extension of rail service.“(4) Three members from among persons involved in commercial activities in Alaska who are qualified to represent commercial interests in Alaska, of which one shall be a representative of the Alaska Railroad Corporation.“(5) One member representing United States Class I rail carriers and one member representing United States rail labor.“(6) Three members with relevant expertise, at least one of whom shall be an engineer with expertise in subarctic transportation and at least one of whom shall have expertise on the environmental impact of such transportation.“(c)Canadian Membership.—The Agreement should provide for the Canadian membership of the Commission to be representative of broad categories of interests of Canada as the Government of Canada determines appropriate, consistent with subsection (a)(2).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 343 cases, 1936–2020 · leading case: Doreen M. White v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doreen M. White v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1979). · cites it 6× “The court declined to find an independent right of recovery in tort against Superior under federal law because it concluded that fellow employees were outside the scope of the protection Congress sought to confer on the public by 49 U.”
Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999). · cites it 2× “[19] At the time the FHWA promulgated the current visual acuity standard, the agency was acting pursuant to § 204(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U. S. C. § 304 (a) (1970 ed.), see n. 1, supra, which likewise required the agency to…”
Paul R. Newhouse, Jr., Suki R. Kuresa & Elwin L. Adarna, Cross-Appellants v. Robert's Ilima Tours, Inc., Cross-Appellees, 708 F.2d 436 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “49 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(1). Thus, the FLSA provides for overtime pay for employees generally, while the MCA authorizes the Secretary to establish maximum hours for certain employees in a particular industry.”
Prof'l Drivers Council, John Torbet, & David Gaibis v. Bureau of Motor Carrier Saf., & United States of Am., 706 F.2d 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “” 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(l)-(2) (emphasis added).”
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Schwerman Trucking Co. of Virginia, Inc., a Corp., 540 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir. 1976). · cites it 4× “§ 213 (b)(1) which provides in part: “(b) The provisions of section 207 of this title [maximum hours] shall not apply with respect to— (1) any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service…”
United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370 (1962). · cites it 4× “In an investigation initiated by it under 49 U. S. C. § 304 (c), [1] the Interstate Commerce Commission held that appellees who leased their motor vehicles and hired *372 their services as drivers to the appellee Oklahoma Furniture Manufacturing Company (hereinafter "Oklahoma")…”
Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (1948). · cites it 3× “546 , 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (1). [2] "SEC. 7. (a) No employer shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce — (1) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first…”
Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, Plaintiff v. Union Pac. Motor Freight Co., a Corp., 650 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Union Pacific argues that its dispatchers’ duties affect the safety of operation of vehicles used in interstate commerce and that its dispatchers are subject to regulation by the Secretary of Transportation under section 4 of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 304 , and…”
Carol Jean Vosch, of the Last Will of Charles Lowry, Deceased & David Gaibis & Others Similarly Situated v. Werner Cont'l, Inc., 734 F.2d 149 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “A Gaibis and Lowry’s complaint as amended appears to seek relief directly under the FMCS regulations and § 304 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 304 (1976). 7 Section 304 of the Interstate Commerce Act establishes the authority of the ICC (and now the BMCS), see note 3…”
Michael Bilyou, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2002). “546 , § 204(a); 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (repealed). 6 . Certificate or permit; transportation within scope, and in furtherance, of primary Rusiness enterprise.”
Armstrong v. United States Fire Ins., 606 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Because Wright was a statutory employee of Superior by virtue of 49 U.S.C. § 304 (e), the Fifth Circuit agreed that Wright’s mother was barred by Georgia law from seeking a remedy apart from workmen’s compensation.”
Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (1947). · cites it 2× “546 , 49 U.S.C. § 304 (a) (1), (2) and (3). [2] "( 2 ) Loaders.”
Show all 343 citing cases →
— 49 U.S.C. § 304(a) — 3 cases
Harshman v. Well Serv., Inc., 248 F. Supp. 953 (W.D. Pa. 1964).
Faulkner v. Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co., 32 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Ark. 1940).
Flanzbaum v. M & M Transp. Co., 203 F. Supp. 365 (E.D.N.Y 1962).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304(c) — 1 case
Drum v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 275 (W.D. Okla. 1960).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304(c)(2) — 1 case
Pittsburgh-Johnstown-Altoona Express, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 554 A.2d 137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304(e) — 1 case
Farmer v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 266 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. 1980).
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.