C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—PROCEDURAL RULES › PART 13—INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES › Subpart C—Legal Enforcement Actions

14 C.F.R. § 13.19

Certificate actions appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This section applies to certificate actions by the Administrator that are appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board.

(1) Under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b) the Administrator may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking all or part of any type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate, airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air navigation facility certificate, or air agency certificate if as a result of a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation, the Administrator determines that the public interest and safety in air commerce requires it, if a certificate holder has violated an aircraft noise or sonic boom standard or regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 44715(a), or if the holder of the certificate is convicted of violating 16 U.S.C. 742j-1(a).

(2) The authority of the Administrator to issue orders under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) is delegated to the Chief Counsel, each Deputy Chief Counsel, and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement.

(b) The agency attorney will issue a notice before issuing a non-immediately effective order to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate, airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air navigation facility certificate, air agency certificate, or to revoke an aircraft certificate of registration because the aircraft was used to carry out or facilitate an activity punishable under a law of the United States or a State related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession of a controlled substance), by death or imprisonment for more than one year, and the owner of the aircraft permitted the use of the aircraft knowing that the aircraft was to be used for the activity.

(1) A notice of proposed certificate action will advise the certificate holder or aircraft owner of the charges or other reasons upon which the Administrator bases the proposed action, and allows the holder to answer any charges and to be heard as to why the certificate should not be amended, suspended, modified, or revoked.

(2) In response to a notice of proposed certificate action described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the certificate holder or aircraft owner, within 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice, may—

(i) Surrender the certificate and waive any right to contest or appeal the charged violations and sanction, in which case the Administrator will issue an order;

(ii) Answer the charges in writing by submitting information, including documents and witness statements, demonstrating that a violation of the regulations did not occur or that the proposed sanction is not warranted by the circumstances;

(iii) Submit a written request for an informal conference to discuss the matter with an agency attorney and submit relevant information or documents; or

(iv) Request that an order be issued in accordance with the notice of proposed certificate action so that the certificate holder or aircraft owner may appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board.

(c) In the case of an emergency order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking a type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate, airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air navigation facility certificate, or air agency certificate, a person affected by the immediate effectiveness of the Administrator's order may petition the National Transportation Safety Board for a review of the Administrator's determination that an emergency exists.

(d) A person may not petition the National Transportation Safety Board for a review of the Administrator's determination that safety in air transportation or air commerce requires the immediate effectiveness of an order where the action is based on the circumstances described in paragraph (d)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

(1) The revocation of an individual's airman certificates for the reasons stated in paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section:

(i) A conviction under a law of the United States or a State related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession of a controlled substance), of an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year if the Administrator finds that—

(A) An aircraft was used to commit, or facilitate the commission of the offense; and

(B) The individual served as an airman, or was on the aircraft, in connection with committing, or facilitating the commission of, the offense.

(ii) Knowingly carrying out an activity punishable, under a law of the United States or a State related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession of a controlled substance), by death or imprisonment for more than one year; and—

(A) An aircraft was used to carry out or facilitate the activity; and

(B) The individual served as an airman, or was on the aircraft, in connection with carrying out, or facilitating the carrying out of, the activity.

(2) The revocation of a certificate of registration for an aircraft, and any other aircraft the owner of that aircraft holds, if the Administrator finds that—

(i) The aircraft was used to carry out or facilitate an activity punishable, under a law of the United States or a State related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession of a controlled substance), by death or imprisonment for more than one year; and

(ii) The owner of the aircraft permitted the use of the aircraft knowing that the aircraft was to be used for the activity described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.

(3) The revocation of an airman certificate, design organization certificate, type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate, air carrier operating certificate, airport operating certificate, air agency certificate, or air navigation facility certificate if the Administrator finds that the holder of the certificate or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder—

(i) Was convicted in a court of law of a violation of a law of the United States relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material; or

(ii) Knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.

[Docket FAA-2018-1051, Amdt. 13-40, 86 FR 54527, Oct. 1, 2021, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-1051, Amdt. 13-40A, 87 FR 61233, Oct. 11, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Go Leasing, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Donald D. Engen, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 800 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Go Leasing, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Donald D. Engen, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 800 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “” 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (1986) concerns the “Certificate action” challenged in this appeal.”
Red River Transp. & Dev., Co., Inc., D/B/A Air Freight Express v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 630 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (c). Even the order of the Regional Counsel may be appealed as of right to the National Transportation Safety Board.”
Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C., Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Robert Alan Dailey, Also Known as Bob Dailey Kenneth Wayne Clary, Also Known as Ken Clary, 247 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2001). “Zephyr maintains that the inspectors had no authority to revoke an airworthiness certificate under 14 C.F.R. 13.19(b) (2000), and failed to provide notice of the revocation as required by federal regulations.”
David S. Komjathy v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 832 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “That regulation, insofar as it relates to the challenged policy of suspension of airman certificates for the protection of the public interest and the safety of air commerce, does no more than repeat, virtually verbatim, the statutory grant of authority in 49 App.”
Ward v. State, 374 A.2d 1118 (Md. 1977). · cites it 2× “See 14 CFR § 13.19 . As we have indicated, the conduct proscribed by FAR 91.”
Martha B. Gaunce v. Pierre H. Devincentis & Jack T. Parrish, 708 F.2d 1290 (7th Cir. 1983). “Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (c) the notice of the proposed revocation also informed appellant of several options available to her.”
Leon E. Barnum v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 595 F.2d 869 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “at 2-3, 6-7; see 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (1978). 3 The Administrator found that on June 1, 1975, petitioner operated a Grumman G — 73 aircraft in the vicinity of Put-in-Bay, Ohio, at altitudes substantially less than 1,000 feet above congested areas and within 500 feet of persons and…”
Sottile v. United States, 608 F. Supp. 1040 (D.D.C. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 1429 ; 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (b). Such an action must first be proceeded by notice.”
United States v. Paul Patric McBride, 788 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 1429 (a); 1 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 . The F.A.A. alleged that appellant *1431 had operated an aircraft: 1) without holding a valid medical certificate in violation of 14 C.”
Aviators for Safe & Fairer Reg., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 221 F.3d 222 (1st Cir. 2000). “32176, 32176 (1999)), not opportunities for negotiations or further clarification, and enforcement may include penalties up to and including the revocation of charters, 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (b) (2000). Conversely, compliance may also require major changes in air taxi operations,…”
Redmon ex rel. Redmon v. United States, 934 F.2d 1151 (10th Cir. 1991). “5 (1989) (FAA investigations discretionary in nature); 14 C.F.R. § 13.19 (1989) (FAA “reexamination] [of] any civil airman” discretionary).”
Foster v. Skinner, 70 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1995). “” Therefore, case law and the regulations support the conclusion that Foster’s ninth cause of action does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 14 C.F.R. § 13.19(b) — 4 cases
Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C., Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Robert Alan Dailey, Also Known as Bob Dailey Kenneth Wayne Clary, Also Known as Ken Clary, 247 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2001). “Zephyr maintains that the inspectors had no authority to revoke an airworthiness certificate under 14 C.F.R. 13.19(b) (2000), and failed to provide notice of the revocation as required by federal regulations.”
Pastrana v. United States, 746 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1984).
Pastrana v. United States, 746 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1984).
Dilley v. Skinner, 48 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1995).
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.