The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1). b. . . . possession, control and responsibility concerning the operation of the vehicles, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . other words, an indemnification clause does not necessarily violate the requirement of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Complaint in order to illustrate an alleged violation of the TILA regulations, specifically 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease." 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d). . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.11 ; 49 C.F.R. § 376.12. . . . . § 376.12(d). . . . plain terms of the lease; as well as violations of the Truth-In-Leasing regulations under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1) (“control regulation”) which state's: (c) Exclusive possession and responsibilities. . . . Prior to 1992 the majority view of Section 376.12(c)(1) interpreted the regulation to create an irrebuttable . . . Section 376.12(c)(4) clarifies: Nothing in the provisions required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section . . . Independent Contractor Agreement 116(a); 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1). . . . . § 376.12(c)(1). The parties contest the effect of the regulation on their relationship. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(a) because the Plaintiffs were not “owners” of the equipment as that term is defined by the . . . the OA are designed to impermissibly limit Defendant Risinger’s legal obligations under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Next, the Plaintiffs allege that the OAs lack certain provisions that are required by 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1). . . .
. . . . §§ 376.11 and 376.12, those regulations, like the statute, state only the conditions upon which the . . .
. . . The truckers contend that this $15 usage fee violates 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i). . . . Section 376.12(h) addresses a different abusive practice than § 376.12(i). . . . Section 376.12(h), then, is not in tension with § 376.12(i), and it does not authorize TransAm to require . . . (citing 49 U.S.C. § 13906; 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(1)). . . . It is those compelled purchases that § 376.12(f) prohibits. . . .
. . . . § 376.12, because it failed to include aspects of how Stampley’s compensation would be calculated; . . . Whether the regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12, could impose liability without the presence of a contract . . . where, as here, the party had an actual contract and the question is whether it is inconsistent with § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(4) (“[njothing in the provisions required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is intended . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1). . . .
. . . . § 376.12, a provision of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations.promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier . . . as the complaint sought the remedies of disgorgemént, restitution, or constructive trust for the § 376.12 . . . In so doing, the court addressed certain issues— whether § 376.12 governs only the content of the parties . . .
. . . . § 376.12(i). . . . chargeback under § 376.12(h). . . . However, section 376.12(h) and section 376.12(i) must be read together, in harmony&emdash;TransAm cannot . . . There is no language suggesting that § 376.12(h) exempts a motor carrier from compliance with § 376.12 . . . (i) or makes any sort of exceptions to § 376.12(f). . . .
. . . In 1992, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 was amended, specifically § (c)(4) was added, which provided in pertinent . . . The ICC stated section 376.12 did “not affect ‘employment status.’ ” Id.; see also UPS Ground Freight . . . Hart, 31 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.1994) (“The parties agree that compliance with [§ 376.12] creates an . . . The interpretation that § 376.12(c)(1) creates a rebuttable presumption of an agency relationship is . . . Additionally, the court finds the lease complies with 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1), as paragraph B vests . . .
. . . . § 376.12, a provision of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier . . . The § 376.12 Claims Mervyn’s § 376.12 claims allege that Defendants, by violating various provisions . . . of the Lease, also violated § 376.12. . . . The Scope of § 376.12 Defendants’ first ground for summary judgment on the § 376.12 claims is purely . . . But Defendants are wrong to argue that § 376.12 governs only the Lease’s content, for it also plainly . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1).” Id., Section 11. . . . Exel states in its Opposition brief that the compensation term in the ITA is "in accord with 49 C.F. § 376.12 . . . by any other method of compensation mutually agreed upon by the parties to the lease.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Section 376.12 provides that an authorized carrier may provide transportation services in equipment it . . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12. 49 C.F.R. § 376.11(a). . . . The Carneys allege that the Leases do not meet the requirements of the TIL under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12. . . . the regulations are missing from the Leases and that other terms conflict with the terms listed in § 376.12 . . . contractor relationship may exist when a carrier lessee complies with 49 U.S.C. §14102....” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12 (formerly, § 1057.12 or, earlier, § 1057.4). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(4). Id. . . . the Interstate Commerce Commission amended the underlying regulation, now re-numbered as 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . various courts have held that the ICC’s intent in making the amendment is effective and 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . The ICC 1992 amendment to 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 shows that the Ohio Supreme Court misinterpreted what the . . . Technically, the Haack case interprets a PUCO regulation which parallels 49 C.F.R. § 376.12. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d), (g), (h), and (l) in violation of federal truth-in-leasing regulations. . . . . § 376.12(d), (g), (h), and (l). . . . 14704 for IBT’s alleged violations of the aforementioned truth-in-leasing regulations under section 376.12 . . . , but also that Plaintiffs were injured as a result of IBT’s failure to comply with section 376.12. . . . IBT’s alleged failure to compensate Plaintiffs as agreed, however, is not a violation of section 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(b) (requiring that leases “specify the time and date ... on which the lease begins and ends . . . ”); id. § 376.12(d) (requiring that the amount to be paid to the owner-operator be “clearly stated on . . . In that regard, the Lease does not appear to be in compliance with § 376.12(j)(l), but Mr. . . . Ernest Watson also argues that Jones Express breached 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(2), which states: (2) If . . . However, the Court does find that the Lease was out of compliance with § 376.12(j) for a different reason . . .
. . . unrelated to the cost of maintenance of the Plaintiffs’ vehicles, and therefore [was] in violation of § 376.12 . . . made a decision to focus their efforts on establishing a private right of action under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . return the drivers’ maintenance escrows within the mandated time period in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(e). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c) creates an irrebuttable presumption of employment, making Johnson Trucking liable as a . . . That regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1), states: The lease shall provide that the authorized carrier . . . Again, the ICC has stressed that the intention of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(4) was to establish that § 376.12 . . . As noted above, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(4) stipulates that “[a]n independent contractor relationship may . . . Because 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 creates only a rebuttable presumption of agency, the court must analyze the . . .
. . . . § 376.12(a), the COA cannot be a lease within the meaning of those regulations. . . . The defendants instead dispute the relevance of even the portion of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(a) that permits . . .
. . . . §§ 376.12(b), (d), (j). See also Rediehs Express Inc., 491 N.E.2d at 1010. . . . . § 376.12(c)(1). See also Ill. . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1). See also Ill. . . . Given these marked deviations from the requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 376.11 and 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . . funds were subject to the requirements of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations; specifically, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . We agree with the district court and the Intrenet court that 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k), when viewed in the . . . Section 376.12(k), with its remedial purpose, parallels the trust provisions of the PSA and the PACA . . . Comerica nonetheless argues that because § 376.12(k) permits the commingling of funds and calls for the . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . . funds were subject to the requirements of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations; specifically, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . We agree with the district court and the Intrenet court that 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k), when viewed in the . . . Section 376.12(k), with its remedial purpose, parallels the trust provisions of the PSA and the PACA . . . Comerica nonetheless argues that because § 376.12(k) permits the commingling of funds and calls for the . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d), (2) the compensation documentation provision of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(g), (3) the signed . . . lease of a specific duration provision of 49 C.F.R. §§ 376.11(a)-(b) and 376.12(b), (4) the workers’ . . . of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h). . . . All Saints maintains that Section 11(B) of the proposed lease satisfies § 376.12(j)(l). . . . There is no violation of § 376.12(i). . . .
. . . . § 376.12 and § 376.11(a). (Doc. No. 29 at 8). . . . or Services Provision in Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i)”; “Failure to Provide Insurance Policy in . . . of Set-Offs Charged for Damages in Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(3)”; “Failure to Take Complete . . . Payment in Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(f)”; “Undisclosed, Undocumented and Excessive Charge-Backs . . . to Compensation in Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h).” . . .
. . . . § 376.12(h), provides that [t]he lease shall clearly specify all items that may be initially paid for . . . court erred in concluding that Swift’s Revised Lease complied with 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h). . . . Section 376.12(h) provides as follows: The lease shall clearly specify all items that may be initially . . . In furtherance of these goals, § 376.12(h) contains both a disclosure provision, requiring carriers to . . . The court concluded that, at least with respect to flat-fee charge-backs, “376.12(h) does not require . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d)); (2) documentation regarding the lessors’ compensation (49 C.F.R. § 376.12(g)); (3) a . . . Identification of Compensation Rates: § 376.12(d) Section 376.12(d) requires that: The amount to be paid . . . any trip in the service of the authorized carrier.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d) (emphasis added). . . . Compensation Documentation Provisions: § 376.12(g) Section 376.12(g) reads: Regardless of the method . . . ); and (5) violation of the chargeback provision of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d) and (h), provisions of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et seq., by . . . (d) and that Landstar is allowed to make profit from charge-back items under § 376.12(h). . . . Some district courts have ruled that § 376.12 requires more specificity. . . . The ICC explained that it had incorporated these concerns into § 376.12(h). . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(j)(1). . . . Let us turn, then, to the question whether the chargeback violates § 376.12(f). . . . No one would say that the latter violates § 376.12(f); it is not a “sale” of insurance any more than . . . it can’t be selling insurance to the lessors), it is made clear by comparing § 376.12(f) with § 376.12 . . . Section 376.12(j)(l) confirms our understanding of § 376.12(i): A chargeback for the cost of insurance . . .
. . . . §§ 376.11 and 376.12. . . . the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the authorized carrier lessee.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 14102, and a related regulation, 49 C.F.R. 376.12(f) (fifth cause of action), as well as for attorney . . .
. . . . § 376.12 establishes a rebuttable presumption that Dekalands was acting within the scope of his employment . . . carrier lessee complies with 49 U.S.C. § 14102 and attendant administrative requirements. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Aug. 26, 2003) (noting that 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 “imposes an irrebuttable statutory employment relationship . . . This court’s construction of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 gives effect to that congressional intent of thwarting . . . State Agency Law: Presumption Not Rebutted Since 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 creates a rebuttable presumption . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1). Mr. . . . Section 376.12(c)(1) requires a lease between a federally authorized carrier and an owner-operator to . . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment” during the term of the lease. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Huggins’s claim based on respondeat superior, liability under § 376.12(c)(1) (the so-called “control . . . In 1992, the Interstate Commerce Commission (the predecessor governing agency) made it plain that § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12, in several particulars. . . . Id.; 49 C.F.R. § 376.12. . . . Compensation Amount— 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d) Section 376.12(d) provides, in pertinent part, “The amount . . . Time of Payment — 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(f) Section 376.12(f) provides, in pertinent part, “The lease shall . . . Deductions from Compensation— 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h) Section 376.12(h) provides, in pertinent part, “The . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1) (originally codified at 49 C.F.R. § 1057.12(c)(1)). . . . carrier lessee complies with 49 U.S.C. 14102 and attendant administrative requirements. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1), and to maintain liability insurance on the equipment. . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . . by Arctic.” 540 F.Supp.2d at 932; see 2006 WL 1339427, at *4 (“funds held in escrow under 49 C.F.R. 376.12 . . . This Court found that imposing a statutory trust on funds held in escrow under 49 C.F.R. 376.12(k) “is . . .
. . . . § 376.12). . . . As plaintiff points out, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1) provides that a lease agreement required by the FMCSR . . .
. . . Based on the plain meaning of the phrase “any of this insurance” in the third sentence of § 376.12(j) . . . The final rule, in adopting what is now 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(l), moved the substance of sub-paragraph . . . Finally, the Owner-Operators argue that construing § 376.12(j)(l) in accordance with its plain meaning . . . In these circumstances, we must apply the plain language of § 376.12(j)(l) reflecting the Secretary’s . . . (h) and the “forced purchase” prohibition in § 376.12(i). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1) and § 383.5 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations in support . . .
. . . . §§ 376.12(h) and (j) by charging plaintiffs for drug tests, single state registration and insurance . . . without clearly specifying those charges in their leases; (2) defendant violated § 376.12(f) by failing . . . within 15 days of when he handed in his required paperwork to defendant; and (3) defendant violated § 376.12 . . . Id., § 376.12(j). . . . Section 376.12 requires motor carriers to include certain provisions and adhere to them. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(d) and (h), provisions of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et seq., by . . . (d) and that Landstar is allowed to make profit from charge-back items under § 376.12(h). . . . Some district courts have ruled that § 376.12 requires more specificity. . . . Accordingly, Defendant’s lease is in violation of [§ 376.12(h)] and therefore illegal. . . . Thus, Landstar has failed to comply with § 376.12(h). . . .
. . . . § 376.12, and that Arctic therefore had unlawfully failed to return them to owner-operators upon termination . . . Plaintiffs claim that the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k), created a statutory . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . . . § 376.12(g). . . . . § 376.12(d) and (g). . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d). . . . Accordingly, the Lease violates 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(h) requires that [t]he lease shall clearly specify all items that may be initially paid for . . . Improper management of escrow accounts. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) requires, in relevant part, that the lease . . . Forced purchases, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12®; and c. . . . . § 376.12(k). 48. Disclosure of charge-backs. . . . The Court finds that Defendant has violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) by failing to clearly set forth in . . .
. . . The amended leasing provision, currently codified at 49 C.F.R. 376.12, added subsection (c)(4), that . . . a carrier lessee complies with 49 U.S.C. 14102 and attendant administrative requirements. 49 C.F.R. 376.12 . . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.” 49 C.F.R. 376.12 . . . More specifically, 49 C.F.R. 376.12(c)(4) compels a motor carrier’s lease creating an independent contractor . . . See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. 376.12 (2007). . . .
. . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease. 49 C.F.R § 376.12 . . . Like other federal trucking regulations, § 376.12(c)(1) was "intended to safeguard the public by preventing . . .
. . . . § 376.11 — 376.12. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1), which requires leases to state that the motor carrier assumes complete responsibility . . . did not own to haul goods unless it entered into a written agreement that complied with 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12." . . .
. . . . § 376.12(k). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(4), provides that compliance with the regulation does not affect the issue of whether the . . .
. . . . § 376.12(b) (requiring that leases “specify the time and date ... on which the lease begins and ends . . . ”); id. § 376.12(d) (requiring that the amount to be paid to the owner-operator be “clearly stated on . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d) (requiring a clear statement on the face of the lease of the owner-operator . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1). . . .
. . . . § 376.12(e) (2002) (“The lease shall clearly specify who is responsible for loading and unloading the . . .
. . . . § 376.12 governs the contract and that compliance with § 376.12 imposes a “statutory employee” regime . . . This understanding is also consistent with the court’s analysis of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 infra. b. . . . Section 376.12 Arpin also raises the possibility that 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 imposes a “statutory employee . . . Neither 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 nor § 376.12 impose a “statutory employee” relationship on Arpin and Pouliot . . . Arpin's reliance on this statute, as well as the fact that it is the authority for 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12. 49 U.S.C. § 14102(a)(4) states that “[t]he Secretary [of Transportation] may require a motor . . . and with other applicable law as if the motor vehicles were owned by the motor carrier.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Defendant Beck argues, however, that 49 U.S.C. § 14101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 “do [ ] not elevate . . . Defendant Beck points to 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(e)(4) (adopted in 1992), which states that “Nothing in the . . . In making this determination, the court specifically cited the language of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(4) but . . .
. . . . § 376.12(k). . . . Second, even though Arctic and D & A’s liability under § 376.12(k) has been established here, Sterling . . . Express, Inc., 159 F.Supp.2d 1067 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (holding that Defendants had violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . The Defendants, as this Court has already held, violated Section 376.12(k) by not returning the amounts . . . on the Plaintiffs' claim for unauthorized deduction of purchase or rental payments under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(h); (2) are unauthorized deductions from compensation, in violation of § 376.12(i); and (3 . . . ) are unauthorized deductions of escrow funds, in violation of § 376.12(k). . . . Section 376.12(k)(2) requires that a lease agreement specify the “items to which the escrow fund can . . . be applied.” § 376.12(k)(2). . . . Therefore, the Excess Mileage Charge is not subject to the dictates of § 376.12(k). IV. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(k). See Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(c)(1) (formerly 49 C.F.R. § 1057.12(c)(1)). . See, e.g., Simmons v. . . .
. . . . §§ 376.11, 376.12. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(k) of the federal truth-in-leasing regulations. . . . Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, concluding that the Defendants had violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(f); and the requirement that the carrier return funds held in escrow within 45 days of the . . . termination of a lease. 49 C.F.R. §§ 376.2(l), 376.12(k)(6). . . . We further conclude that, while § 376.12(k)(6) permits Mayflower to “deduct monies for those obligations . . . Section 376.12(0 provides in pertinent part: "The lease shall specify that payment to the lessor shall . . . Section 376.12(k)(6) provides: "If escrow funds are required, the lease shall specify: ... . . .
. . . . §§ 376.11-376.12. . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . . purchase or rental contract” regulated by the Truth-in-Leasing regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . Plaintiffs maintain that the Service Contract violates 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h) which reads as follows: . . . Plaintiffs allege multiple violations of § 376.12(k). . . . There are no provisions specifying that Defendants will pay interest as set forth under § 376.12(k)(5 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(k), a written lease regarding escrow funds must include the following: (1) The amount of any . . . language of the independent contractor agreements closely tracks the requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k)(“7/ escrow funds are required, the lease shall specify ... ”)(emphasis added . . . We do not believe that a complete tracking of the language of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) in the written lease . . .
. . . Specifically, Plaintiffs allege violations of the following regulations: (1) 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h) — . . . ; and (3) 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) — Escrow funds. . . . Plaintiffs’ claims are based on regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. 376.12. . . . See 49 C.F.R. 376.12. . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h),(i) & (k). . . .
. . . accounts” and for fuel-tax credit accounts, which are “escrow funds” pursuant to 49 CFR §§ 376.20) and 376.12 . . . unexpend-ed portion of the fuel tax credits within forty-five days after the lease expires. 49 CFR § 376.12 . . . He filed an affidavit in support of plaintiffs' motions to certify the classes. . 49CFR§ 376.12(m) provides . . . permit costs, and for any other purposes mutually agreed upon by the lessor and lessee.” . 49 CFR § 376.12 . . . In addition, 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(l) regarding insurance provides: "If the authorized carrier will make . . .
. . . . § 376.12(i) (unauthorized deduction of purchase or rental payments), and in Count II a violation of . . . 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) (unauthorized deduction and non-return of escrow funds). . . . In this case, the Court need not find a “flat ban” or per se violation of § 376.12(k)(6) as the Ledar . . . The Court is not persuaded by the Defendants’ claim that such disclosure satisfies § 376.12(k). . . . The Defendants’ insistence on doing just that is a direct violation of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k). y. . . .
. . . . § 376.12(Z). Complaint ¶ 36. . . . pursuant to 49 CFR § 376.2(e) or whether the accounts are "escrow" accounts pursuant to § 376.2(l) and 376.12 . . . The basis for such liability is 49 CFR § 376.12(m), which provides: This paragraph applies to owners . . . State permit costs, and for any other purposes mutually agreed upon by the lessor and lessee. 49 CFR § 376.12 . . . this insurance, the lease shall specify the amount which will be charged-back to the lessor. 49 CFR § 376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12. . . .
. . . . § 1057.12(c)(1) [now § 376.12(c)(1) ] to state that a carrier is liable for the operation of the equipment . . . the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the authorized carrier lessee.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 . . . The correct regulatory citation is 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(c)(1). . . . . Section 1057.12 was renumbered in 1997 as section 376.12, without changing the language of either of . . .
. . . . § 376.12®, (k)(l)-(6). . . . Specifically, the Plaintiffs have alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12® and (k). . . . . 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(i) and (k). . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(0(6). . . . See 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k). . Codified as 49 C.F.R. Part 376 in 1996. . . . .
. . . . §§ 376.12(i) & (k). . . . The carriers argue that the leasing regulations on which the Owner-Operators rely, 49 C.F.R. §§ 376.12 . . .
. . . of Southern Star’s fixed assets (not including accounts receivable and poultry inventory) and $931,-376.12 . . .
. . . . § 376.12(6), Fla. Stat. (1995). Fifth, we look at Waite v. . . .
. . . Class 3 The IRS has filed a secured claim for $214,-376.12 for income taxes. . . .
. . . Arney was charged with failing to report an oil spill, a violation of Section 376.12(7), Florida Statutes . . . Section 376.12(7) provides in part: In addition to the civil penalty, the pilot and the master of any . . . regulations requiring designation of persons in charge of terminal facilities for the purposes of Section 376.12 . . . at the time of the spill and, therefore, that he was not the proper person to charge under Section 376.12 . . .
. . . Section 376.12, Florida Statutes Annotated, provides in part: Liabilities of licensees. — Because it . . . ’s recovery of cleanup costs — by simply pleading and proving the fact of a discharge under Section 376.12 . . .
. . . Excess profits credit computed under income method as shown on Schedule EP_$100, 494.32 Income tax- $61, 376.12 . . .