C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER VIII—NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD › PART 821—RULES OF PRACTICE IN AIR SAFETY PROCEEDINGS › Subpart K—Judicial Review of Board Orders

49 C.F.R. § 821.64

Judicial review

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

(a) General. Judicial review of a final order of the Board may be sought as provided in 49 U.S.C. 1153 and 46110 by the filing of a petition for review with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals or United States District Court, pursuant to the provisions of Pub. L. 112-53, 126 Stat. 1159 (August 3, 2012), 49 U.S.C. 44703 note. Such petition is due within 60 days of the date of entry (i.e., service date) of the Board's order. Under the applicable statutes, any party may appeal the Board's decision. The Board is not a party in interest in such appellate proceedings and, accordingly, does not typically participate in the judicial review of its decisions. In matters appealed by the Administrator, the other parties should anticipate the need to make their own defense.

(b) Stay pending judicial review. No request for a stay pending judicial review will be entertained unless it is served on the Board within 15 days after the date of service of the Board's order. The non-moving party may, within 5 days after the date of service of such a motion, file a reply thereto.

[68 FR 22625, Apr. 29, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 63245, Oct. 16, 2012; 77 FR 63253, Oct. 16, 2012; 78 FR 57534, Sept. 19, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2004–2020 · leading case: Coghlan v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 470 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coghlan v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 470 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006). “§ 44709 (f); 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 (a). 5 . The briefs are inconsistent on whether the type rating Coghlan re-obtained was a BE-200 or CE-500 rating, but the distinction is not material for purposes of our analysis.”
William K. King v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. Marion C. Blakey, Adm'r, Fed. Aviation Admin., 362 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 (a) (2004). B. Prior to May 2002, William King had worked as a Northwest Airlines aircraft mechanic for fourteen years.”
Richard Boeta v. FAA (5th Cir. 2018). “§ 1153 (a); 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 . A party aggrieved by such orders may file a petition for review in this court within sixty days after the order is issued.”
Dahl v. Dickson (D.D.C. 2020). “§ 44703 (d)(3); 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 . 4 III. Factual and Procedural History of the Case As petitioner acknowledges, in 1997 or 1998, he “had a traffic stop .”
Barry M. Cornish v. Fed. Aviation Admin. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 429 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2005). “§§ 1153 , 44709(f), 46110(a); 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 (a). We deny the petition for review.”
William King v. NTSB FAA (8th Cir. 2004). “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 (a) (2004). B. Prior to May 2002, William King had worked as a Northwest Airlines aircraft mechanic for fourteen years.”
Barry M. Cornish v. FAA (8th Cir. 2005). “§§ 1153 , 44709(f), 46110(a); 49 C.F.R. § 821.64 (a). We deny the petition for review.”
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.