C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER VIII—NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD › PART 821—RULES OF PRACTICE IN AIR SAFETY PROCEEDINGS › Subpart H—Appeal From Initial Decision

49 C.F.R. § 821.49

Issues on appeal

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

(a) On appeal, the Board will consider only the following issues:

(1) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence?

(2) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent and policy?

(3) Are the questions on appeal substantial?

(4) Have any prejudicial errors occurred?

(b) If the Board determines that the law judge erred in any respect, or that his or her initial decision or order should be changed, the Board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge's initial decision or order, or may remand the proceeding for any such purpose as the Board may deem necessary.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2008 · leading case: William K. King v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. Marion C. Blakey, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 362 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William K. King v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. Marion C. Blakey, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 362 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2004). “*442 See 49 C.F.R. § 821.49 (b) (2004). A party dissatisfied with the Board’s decision may petition for review by a federal court of appeals.”
Zeus Enter., Inc. v. Alphin Aircraft, Inc., 190 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 1999). “Ater the hearing the ALJ issued his decision that included detailed factual findings and determined that the airplane was not airworthy.”
Seaquist v. Blakey, 210 F. App'x 423 (5th Cir. 2006). “” 49 C.F.R. § 821.49 (a)(1). The NTSB was clear in its decision that, in its review, Seaquist did not meet his burden of proving he has no history of substance dependence.”
William King v. NTSB FAA (8th Cir. 2004). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.49 (b) (2004). A party dissatisfied with the Board's decision may petition for review by a federal court of appeals.”
Curran v. Nat'l Transp. Appeals Bd., 266 F. App'x 645 (9th Cir. 2008). “1985); 49 C.F.R. § 821.49 (a). Thus, the issue should have been properly raised with the NTSB, and this court may not consider it now.”
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.