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. § 821.50

Petition for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration or modification of an order of the Board

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

(a) General. Any party to a proceeding may petition the Board for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration or modification of a Board order on appeal from a law judge's initial decision or order. An initial decision or appealable order of a law judge that has become final because no timely appeal was taken therefrom may not be the subject of a petition under this section.

(b) Timing and service. The petition must be filed with the Board, and simultaneously served on the other parties, within 30 days after the date of service of the Board's order on appeal from the law judge's initial decision or order.

(c) Content. The petition shall state briefly and specifically the matters of record alleged to have been erroneously decided, and the ground or grounds relied upon. If the petition is based, in whole or in part, upon new matter, it shall set forth such new matter and shall contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable, and shall explain why such new matter could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record closed. To the extent the petition is not based upon new matter, the Board will not consider arguments that could have been made in the appeal or reply briefs received prior to the Board's decision.

(d) Repetitious petitions. Repetitious petitions will not be entertained by the Board, and will be summarily dismissed.

(e) Reply to petition. Any other party to the proceeding may file a reply to the petition within 15 days after the date on which the petition was served on that party. A copy of such reply shall simultaneously be served on the petitioner and any other parties to the proceeding.

(f) Stay of effective date of Board's order. The filing of a petition under this section shall operate to stay the effective date of the Board's order, unless the Board directs otherwise.

[68 FR 22625, Apr. 29, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 63252, Oct. 16, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2018 · leading case: Collins v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 351 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collins v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 351 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “1976 (1984) (holding that the 30-day time limit established in the Rules of Practice for aviation proceedings, 49 C.F.R. § 821.50 (b), should also apply to maritime proceedings).”
Gorman v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 558 F.3d 580 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Gorman subsequently filed a rehearing petition with the NTSB on January 28, 2008—outside the prescribed 30-day window, see 49 C.F.R. § 821.50 (a)-(b) (petition “for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration or modification of a Board order on appeal from a law judge’s initial…”
Robert Scott, Jr., & Robert C. Konop v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., Sec'y of Transp. & Fed. Aviation Admin., 114 F.3d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Scott also cites to 49 C.F.R. §§ 821.50 (b) and 826.24(a). These sections are inapplicable as section 821.”
Richard Boeta v. FAA (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 821.50 (b). On June 2, 2017, the NTSB dismissed Boeta’s motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with § 821.”
Garvey v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.50 . Indeed, although in Hinson we rejected the FAA’s effort to advance its regulatory interpretation because the agency had not raised it at all in the NTSB proceedings, we indicated we would have considered it had the FAA raised it at the reconsideration…”
Garvey v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.50 . Indeed, although in Hinson we rejected the FAA’s effort to advance its regulatory interpretation because the agency had not raised it at all in the NTSB proceedings, we indicated we would have considered it had the FAA raised it at the reconsideration…”
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.