320 (1974) ("A new statute will not be read as wholly or even partially amending a prior one unless there exists a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the new and those of the old that cannot be reconciled.”) (quotations and citations omitted); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974) ("In the absence of some affirmative showing of an intention to repeal, the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.”); I.C.C. v. S. Ry. Co., 543 F.2d 534, 539 (5th Cir.1976). (“Under the usual rules of statutory construction, where there is a conflict between an earlier statute and a subsequent enactment, the subsequent enactment governs.”); see also'United Stat 8, 822 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re The Glacier Bay, 944 F.2d 577, 583 (9th
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the transalaska pipeline authorization act holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the park system resource protection act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act