U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE I— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › Chapter CHAPTER 3— GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

49 U.S.C. § 304a

Accelerated decisionmaking in environmental reviews

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—In preparing a final environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), if the lead agency modifies the statement in response to comments that are minor and are confined to factual corrections or explanations of why the comments do not warrant additional agency response, the lead agency may write on errata sheets attached to the statement, instead of rewriting the draft statement, subject to the condition that the errata sheets—(1) cite the sources, authorities, and reasons that support the position of the agency; and(2) if appropriate, indicate the circumstances that would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.(b)Single Document.—To the maximum extent practicable, the lead agency shall expeditiously develop a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and a record of decision, unless—(1) the final environmental impact statement makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental or safety concerns; or(2) there is a significant new circumstance or information relevant to environmental concerns that bears on the proposed action or the impacts of the proposed action.(c)Adoption and Incorporation by Reference of Documents.—(1)Avoiding duplication.—To prevent duplication of analyses and support expeditious and efficient decisions, the operating administrations of the Department of Transportation shall use adoption and incorporation by reference in accordance with this subsection.(2)Adoption of documents of other operating administrations.—An operating administration or a secretarial office within the Department of Transportation may adopt a draft environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a final environmental impact statement of another operating administration for the use of the adopting operating administration when preparing an environmental assessment or final environmental impact statement for a project without recirculating the document for public review, if—(A) the adopting operating administration certifies that the proposed action is substantially the same as the project considered in the document to be adopted;(B) the other operating administration concurs with such decision; and(C) such actions are consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).(3)Incorporation by reference.—An operating administration or secretarial office within the Department of Transportation may incorporate by reference all or portions of a draft environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a final environmental impact statement for the use of the adopting operating administration when preparing an environmental assessment or final environmental impact statement for a project if—(A) the incorporated material is cited in the environmental assessment or final environmental impact statement and the contents of the incorporated material are briefly described;(B) the incorporated material is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for review and comment; and(C) the incorporated material does not include proprietary data that is not available for review and comment.(Added Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title I, § 1311(a), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1398.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEditorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c)(2)(C), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as an Effective Date of 2015 Amendment note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases, 1937–1995 · leading case: Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). “§ 1336 and 49 U. S. C. § 304a. “(C) Actions, whether in the form of judicial review, habeas corpus or otherwise, for review of orders and other actions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.”
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). “II The ICA requires carriers’ rates to be “reasonable,” § 10701(a), and gives shippers an express cause of action against carriers for damages (called “reparations” in the pre-codification version of the statute, see 49 U. S. C. §§304a(2), *263 (5) (1976 ed.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. B & T Transp. Co. & Bos-Taun Consolidating Co., Inc., 613 F.2d 1182 (1st Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “” 49 U.S.C. § 304a(5). The ICC’s original complaint relies on both § 317(b) and § 316, and the district court refers to both in its opinion, although the ICC emphasized overcharges rather than reparations in its brief and at oral argument.”
Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Transtop, Inc., 902 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “651 (amending 49 U.S.C. §§ 304a(2, 5)) (repealed and recodified at 49 U.”
United States v. Associated Transp., Inc., 505 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1974). · cites it 7× “49 U.S.C. § 304a (2), (5) (1970). 9 . 433 F.”
Appleton Elec. Co. v. Advance-United Expressways, 494 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1974). · cites it 3× “The court held that the refunds required by these orders were neither a reparation authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 304a nor restitution under common law or equity principles, but rather quid pro quo refunds lawfully ordered by the Commission in return for the granting of the extension…”
Nat'l Motor Freight Traffic Ass'n v. United States, 268 F. Supp. 90 (D.D.C. 1967). · cites it 2× “(a) Paragraph (2) of section 204a of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. § 304a) is amended to read as follows: “(2) For recovery of reparations, action at law shall be begun against common carriers by motor vehicle subject to this part within two years from the time the…”
Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc., 635 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1980). “Although the complaint originally relied for jurisdiction on 49 U.S.C. § 304a (reparation proceedings), the plaintiffs on June 20, 1972 moved for summary judgment on the basis of 49 U.”
Paul M. Garrett, Tr. in Bankr. for Metro. Shippers' Clearings Corp. Of Washington v. time-d.c., Inc., 502 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “See 49 U.S.C. § 304a. “Overcharges” are defined as charges *629 “in excess of those [provided] under the tariffs.”
Bowman Transp., Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 36 (Ct. Cl. 1979). · cites it 5× “It follows, defendant argues, that since plaintiffs claim is for transportation charges, the claim is subject to the special three-year statute of limitations governing transportation charge disputes, 49 U.S.C. § 304a (1976), rather than the regular six-year statute of…”
Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 353 (D. Colo. 1971). · cites it 2× “Although the amendment does not explicitly set forth the procedure to be used in awarding reparations, the legislative history makes it clear that Congress intended to restore the procedure formerly utilized by the Commission pursuant to the policies which it articulated in Bell…”
TI ME Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 464 (1959). “" 49 U. S. C. § 304a. It would be surprising, given the policy of uniformity reflected in this provision, for Congress not to have also added a statute of limitations provision applicable to suits on account of unreasonable rates, had a cause of action with respect to such rates…”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(2) — 8 cases
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). “II The ICA requires carriers’ rates to be “reasonable,” § 10701(a), and gives shippers an express cause of action against carriers for damages (called “reparations” in the pre-codification version of the statute, see 49 U. S. C. §§304a(2), *263 (5) (1976 ed.”
Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Transtop, Inc., 902 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1990). “651 (amending 49 U.S.C. §§ 304a(2, 5)) (repealed and recodified at 49 U.”
Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 353 (D. Colo. 1971). “Although the amendment does not explicitly set forth the procedure to be used in awarding reparations, the legislative history makes it clear that Congress intended to restore the procedure formerly utilized by the Commission pursuant to the policies which it articulated in Bell…”
United States v. Associated Transp., Inc., 505 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “49 U.S.C. § 304a (2), (5) (1970). 9 . 433 F.”
James G. Duffy, Tr. for Canny Trucking Co., Inc. v. Bmc Indus., Inc., Doing Bus. as Buckbee Mears Cortland Co., 938 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1991).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(4) — 1 case
Bowman Transp., Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 36 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “It follows, defendant argues, that since plaintiffs claim is for transportation charges, the claim is subject to the special three-year statute of limitations governing transportation charge disputes, 49 U.S.C. § 304a (1976), rather than the regular six-year statute of…”
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(5) — 6 cases
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. B & T Transp. Co. & Bos-Taun Consolidating Co., Inc., 613 F.2d 1182 (1st Cir. 1980). “” 49 U.S.C. § 304a(5). The ICC’s original complaint relies on both § 317(b) and § 316, and the district court refers to both in its opinion, although the ICC emphasized overcharges rather than reparations in its brief and at oral argument.”
Nat'l Small Shipments Traffic Conf., Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 590 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1347 (2d Cir. 1985).
United States v. Associated Transp., Inc., 505 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “49 U.S.C. § 304a (2), (5) (1970). 9 . 433 F.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. B & T Transp. Co., 467 F. Supp. 987 (D. Mass. 1979).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(6) — 3 cases
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. B & T Transp. Co. & Bos-Taun Consolidating Co., Inc., 613 F.2d 1182 (1st Cir. 1980). “” 49 U.S.C. § 304a(5). The ICC’s original complaint relies on both § 317(b) and § 316, and the district court refers to both in its opinion, although the ICC emphasized overcharges rather than reparations in its brief and at oral argument.”
Paul M. Garrett, Tr. in Bankr. for Metro. Shippers' Clearings Corp. Of Washington v. time-d.c., Inc., 502 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1974). “See 49 U.S.C. § 304a. “Overcharges” are defined as charges *629 “in excess of those [provided] under the tariffs.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. B & T Transp. Co., 467 F. Supp. 987 (D. Mass. 1979).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(7) — 1 case
Iran Nat'l Airlines Corp. v. The United States, 360 F.2d 640 (Ct. Cl. 1966).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(8)(A) — 1 case
Scott v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 829 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
— 49 U.S.C. § 304a(l) — 1 case
Isthmian S.S. Co. v. United States, 191 F. Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).
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.