49 U.S.C. § 1153

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)General.—The appropriate court of appeals of the United States or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may review a final order of the National Transportation Safety Board under this chapter. A person disclosing a substantial interest in the order may apply for review by filing a petition not later than 60 days after the order of the Board is issued.(b)Persons Seeking Judicial Review of Aviation Matters.—(1) A person disclosing a substantial interest in an order related to an aviation matter issued by the Board under this chapter may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order is issued. The court may allow the petition to be filed after the 60 days only if there was a reasonable ground for not filing within that 60-day period.(2) When a petition is filed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the clerk of the court immediately shall send a copy of the petition to the Board. The Board shall file with the court a record of the proceeding in which the order was issued.(3) When the petition is sent to the Board, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify, or set aside any part of the order and may order the Board to conduct further proceedings. After reasonable notice to the Board, the court may grant interim relief by staying the order or taking other appropriate action when cause for its action exists. Findings of fact by the Board, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.(4) In reviewing an order under this subsection, the court may consider an objection to an order of the Board only if the objection was made in the proceeding conducted by the Board or if there was a reasonable ground for not making the objection in the proceeding.(5) A decision by a court under this subsection may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court under section 1254 of title 28.(c)Administrator Seeking Judicial Review of Aviation Matters.—When the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration decides that an order of the Board under section 44703(d), 44709, or 46301(d)(5) of this title will have a significant adverse impact on carrying out this chapter related to an aviation matter, the Administrator may obtain judicial review of the order under section 46110 of this title. The Administrator shall be made a party to the judicial review proceedings. Findings of fact of the Board are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.(d)Commandant Seeking Judicial Review of Maritime Matters.—If the Commandant of the Coast Guard decides that an order of the Board issued pursuant to a review of a Coast Guard action under section 1133 of this title will have an adverse impact on maritime safety or security, the Commandant may obtain judicial review of the order under subsection (a). The Commandant, in the official capacity of the Commandant, shall be a party to the judicial review proceedings.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 756; Pub. L. 108–293, title VI, § 622, Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1063; Pub. L. 112–95, title III, § 301(b), Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 56.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
1153(a)	49 App.:1655(d) (last sentence).	Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 6(d), 80 Stat. 938.
	49 App.:1903(d).	Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93–633, § 304(d), 88 Stat. 2171.
1153(b)(1)	49 App.:1486(a), (b) (as 1486(a), (b) relates to CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(a), (b), (e), (f) (as § 1006(a), (b), (e), (f) relates to CAB), 72 Stat. 795.
	49 App.:1655(d) (1st sentence).
1153(b)(2)	49 App.:1486(c) (related to CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(c) (related to CAB), 72 Stat. 795; restated June 29, 1960, Pub. L. 86–546, § 1, 74 Stat. 255.
	49 App.:1655(d) (1st sentence).
1153(b)(3)	49 App.:1486(d), (e) (1st sentence) (as 1486(d), (e) (1st sentence) relates to CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(d) (related to CAB), 72 Stat. 795; restated Sept. 13, 1961, Pub. L. 87–225, § 2, 75 Stat. 497.
	49 App.:1655(d) (1st sentence).
1153(b)(4)	49 App.:1486(e) (last sentence related to CAB).
	49 App.:1655(d) (1st sentence).
1153(b)(5)	49 App.:1486(f) (related to CAB).
	49 App.:1655(d) (1st sentence).
1153(c)	49 App.:1429(a) (8th–last sentences related to Administrator under subch. VII).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 609(a) (8th–last sentences related to Administrator under title VII), 72 Stat. 779; Nov. 18, 1971, Pub. L. 92–159, § 2(a), 85 Stat. 481; Aug. 26, 1992, Pub. L. 102–345, § 3(a)(2), 106 Stat. 925.
	49 App.:1471(a) (3)(D)(v) (related to Administrator under subch. VII).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, § 901(a) (3)(D)(v) (related to Administrator under title VII); added Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, § 7208(b), 102 Stat. 4429; restated Aug. 26, 1992, Pub. L. 102–345, § 2(a), 106 Stat. 923.
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).	Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 6(c)(1), 80 Stat. 938; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97–449, § 7(b), 96 Stat. 2444.

In subsection (a), the text of 49 App.:1903(d) (last sentence) is omitted as unnecessary because 5:ch. 7 applies by its own terms. The words “final order” are substituted for “order, affirmative or negative” in 49 App.:1903(d) and “Decisions of the National Transportation Safety Board made pursuant to the exercise of the functions, powers, and duties enumerated in this subsection shall be administratively final” in 49 App.:1655(d) to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “is issued” are substituted for “after the entry” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The text of 49 App.:1655(d) (last sentence words after last comma) is omitted as unnecessary because of 49 App.:1903(d).

In subsection (b)(1), the words “affirmative or negative” are omitted as surplus. The words “related to an aviation matter” are added because the source provisions being restated only apply to aviation matters. The words “is issued” are substituted for “the entry of” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code.

In subsection (b)(2), the words “if any” are omitted as surplus. The words “of the proceeding” are added for clarity. The words “complained of” and “as provided in section 2112 of title 28” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b)(3), the word “amend” is added for consistency in the revised title. The word “interim” is substituted for “interlocutory” for clarity. The words “taking other appropriate action” are substituted for “by such mandatory or other relief as may be appropriate” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(4), the words “made in the proceeding conducted by” are substituted for “urged before” for clarity.

In subsection (c), the source provisions are combined to eliminate unnecessary words and are restated in this chapter to alert the reader to the authority of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to seek judicial review of an order of the National Transportation Safety Board under section 44709 or 46301(d) of the revised title that the Administrator decides will have a significant adverse impact on carrying out source provisions restated in this chapter that are derived from title VII of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85–726, 72 Stat. 781).

Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–95 substituted “section 44703(d), 44709, or” for “section 44709 or”.

2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–293 added subsec. (d).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 96 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · 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). · cites it 5× “We need not address the Commandant’s reasoning, because although Nitkin raised essentially the same claims in his appeal to the NTSB under 49 U.S.C. § 1153 , the Board reversed on quite different grounds and never reached the issues posed in Nitkin’s appeal to the Commandant.”

Michael Huerta v. Jody Ducote, 792 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 10× “II Jurisdiction Both 49 U.S.C. § 1153 (c) and 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (f) provide that the Administrator “may” petition for review of a Board order if the “Administrator decides” that the Board’s order “will have a significant adverse impact” on air safety and commerce.”

Joshi Ex Rel. Est. of Joshi v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 791 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “Joshi now petitions this court for review of the Reports and the denial of his petition for reconsideration.”

Casino Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 439 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (f).”

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). “(1) (“Any petition for review under this subsection shall be fled within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register, except that if such petition is based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day, then any…”

H.G. Gibson, Petitioner, v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., Respondent, 118 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 11× “We hold that we do not have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153 , and we dismiss the petition to review.”

Gorman v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 558 F.3d 580 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Gorman, Docket SE-18094 at 1-2 (NTSB May 13, 2008) (NTSB Rehearing Order) (footnotes omitted) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(3)). Alternatively, the Board noted that, even if the filing of the petition for judicial review did not deprive it of jurisdiction, Gorman’s petition for…”

Creed v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 758 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 49 U.S.C. § 1153 (a). Determining whether section 1153(a) precludes this Court from hearing Creed’s case thus requires the resolution of two questions: would disposing of Creed’s claims involve a “review [of] a final order of the [NTSB] under” chapter 11? And, if so, is the…”

Newton v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153 , 44709(f), 46110(a), to review the NTSB’s order.”

Coghlan v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 470 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(1), (3); see also 49 U.”

Dickson v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 639 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Dickson now seeks judicial review pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1153 . II This court must uphold an NTSB decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan, 628 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2010). “49 U.S.C. § 1153 (a). 28 . Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.”

Show all 96 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a) — 3 cases

Kinneary v. City of New York, 358 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

Daisey v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 51 F. App'x 272 (9th Cir. 2002).

David Riggs v. Lynne Osmus, 384 F. App'x 628 (9th Cir. 2010).

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.