ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

49 U.S.C. § 60135Enforcement transparency

submitted 20 years ago by Pub. L. 109-468 to r/title-49-TRANSPORTATION · 196 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

A translation hasn’t been published for this section yet. The official text below is complete and authoritative.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a)In General.—

Not later than December 31, 2007, the Secretary shall—

(1)

provide a monthly updated summary to the public of all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline enforcement actions taken by the Secretary or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, from the time a notice commencing an enforcement action is issued until the enforcement action is final;

(2)

include in each such summary identification of the operator involved in the enforcement activity, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, any changes in case status since the previous summary, the final assessment amount of each penalty, and the reasons for a reduction in the proposed penalty, if appropriate; and

(3)

provide a mechanism by which a pipeline operator named in an enforcement action may make information, explanations, or documents it believes are responsive to the enforcement action available to the public.

(b)Electronic Availability.—

Each summary under this section shall be made available to the public by electronic means.

(c)Relationship to FOIA.—

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require disclosure of information or records that are exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 109–468, § 6(a), Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3491.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 2006Enacted · Pub. L. 109-468 · 120 Stat. 3491

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 109-468 on 2006-12-29.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case