# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A C I R C U I T

Arg ued Oc tober 18, 2010 Dec ided April 19, 2011

No. 09-1278

A V I A D Y N A M I C S , I

N C ., P E T I T I O N E R

v.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N ,

R E S P O N D E N T

On Petition for Review of a n Orde r of the F eder al Aviation Administration

Jason A. Dick

stein argued the c ause f

or the pe titioner.

E d w ard Himmelfarb
, Attorney
, United States Depa rtment of J ustice, argued the cause for the res p o n d ent. Anthony J. Steinmey er , Attorney
, United States Depa rtment of J ustice, was on brief.

Be fore: H E N D E R S O N and G R I F F I T H , Circuit Judges
, and E D W A R D S , Senior Circuit Judge

. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge H E N D E R S O N

. K A R E N L E C R A F T H E N D E R S O N , Circuit Judge : Petitioner Avia Dy namics, I nc. (Avia)
, a manufa cture r an d distributer of2

airc raf t parts, seeks revie w o f an “Una pproved Parts No t ification” (UPN) posted by the Fe dera l Aviati o n Administration (F AA) on its website. The UPN decla red that 1 Avia Dy namics had manufa cture d cer tain airc raf

t parts without FAA production approval. Beca us e Avia filed its petition afte r the six ty -day statutory time limit had elapse d an d h as failed to demonstrate “re asonable g rounds” for missing the deadline, we deny its petiti on as untimely

. I.

The FAA has statutory responsibil i t y to enfor ce minim um safe ty standards in civil aviation. 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a) (1). As
p ar t of its statutory mandate, the FAA shall issue a “t y p e

cer tificate” for any “air cra ft, airc raf t eng ine, or propeller
, or

. . . appliance ” t hat meets its standards. 49 U.S.C. § 44704(a) (1). Replace ment parts and parts used to modify a “ty pe cer tificated” airc raf t must be manufa cture d acc ording to FAA specific ations, except under cer

tain lim ited circ umstances. 14 C.F.R. § 21.303(a) –(b). In g ener al, a pa rts manufa cture r must obtain a “Parts Manufa cture r Approva l” from the FAA by providing evidenc e that it s “desig n of t he part” m eets F AA air worthiness require ments and b y ce rt ify ing that it has a “fa brica tion inspection sy stem” in place to ensure continued compliance with FAArequire ments. See ge nerally id. § 21.303.

I n 1993, the FAA cre ated the “Suspecte d Unappr oved Pa rt s ” (SUP) Prog ram to preve nt airc raf t parts manufa cture d

w it h out a Parts Manufa cture r Approva l—kn o w n a s “ u n a p p r o v e d parts”— fr o m being installed on ty pe certificated aircraf

t. FAA Advisory Circular 21- 29C, Detec ting a nd Reporting Suspected

T h e F A A i s a n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s 1
D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

. 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 6 ( a )

.3

Unappr oved Parts, ¶¶ 3(b)( 1), 3(o), 5(a) –(b) (Jul y 2 2
, 2008). Throug h the SUP Prog ram, the FAA identifies a s u specte d
unapprove d part in the marke t, investigates and t hen takes one of sever al actions. FAA Orde r 8120.16, Processing Reports of Suspected Unappr oved P ar t s, ch. 4, ¶ 2 (Jul y 15, 2008) (Orde r 8120.16). The actions include in i t i ation of a civil enfor ceme nt action ag ains t the non-compliant party and/or publication of a “F ield Notification” on the FAA ’s website to notify the aviation community of the unapprove d part. Id. ch. 4, ¶¶ 2(i), 4 (e). Avia’s petition in v o l v es one such unapprove d parts investigation.

The FAA opened an SUP investigation on October 23, 2006 afte r an FAA inspector discovere d that a ty pe of airc raf

t curr ent limit er in Avia’s inventory appea red to have been manufa cture d 2 without FAA approva l. The investigat i on focuse d at first on Ellipti cal Sy stems, I nc., the manufa cture r of the curr ent limit er, but it soon shif

t ed to Avia as it beca

me apparent that Ellipti cal fabr icated the parts acc ording to Avia’s specific ations. The
scope of the investigation chang ed too, branc hi n g out from

curr ent limit ers to include overhe ad light switches, also manufa cture d by E l l i p t i cal, coff ee maker brew tray s made by Avia and othe r airc raf

t parts not involved here in. O n Aug ust 6, 2007, afte r near ly ten months of investiga t i o n, the FAA conclude d that the curr ent limit ers, overhe ad light switches and coff ee maker brew tray s in Avia’s invent o ry wer e all “unappr oved par

ts.”

Meanw hile, the FAA t ook steps to initiate an enforce ment action ag ains t Avi a. On J uly 24, 2007, it issued a letter of investigation to Avi a, informing the company that it was

A c u r r e n t l i m i t e r i s a d e v i c e t h a t r e g u l a t e s e l e c t r i c a l c u r r e n t i n 2

o r d e r t o r e d u c e t h e r i s k o f s h o r t

- c i r c u i t , l o s s o f p o w e r o r f i r e

.4
investigating “a su specte d unapprove d parts alleg ation” and
reque sting the company ’s cooper ation. L etter from Sandy K. Yamane , Aviation Safety I nspector, Van Nuy s Mfg . I nspection Dist. Offic e, FAA
, to Gar y Sz erma n, Avia-D y

namics Corp

. (Jul y 24, 2007). The FAA asked Avia to explain the reason f or it s non-complianc e, detail what actions it took to preve nt

rec urre nce and identify any rele vant mitigating circ umstances. After Avia’s first re s p onse, which the FAA dismiss ed as “unac cepta

ble,”Avia submitt ed a compre hensive repor t on Fe bruar y 27, 2008, entit l ed “Root Cause Analy sis and Correc tive Action Report.” L etter from Sandy K. Yamane
, Aviation Safety I nspector, Van Nuy s Mfg

. I nspection Dist. Offic e, FAA
, to Gar

y Sz erma n, Avia-D y

namics Corp. (Aug

. 22, 2007). T he FAA signa led its satisfac tion with Avia’s submissi on in a letter dated April 7, 2008, informing Avia that “this matter does not war

rant leg al enfor ceme nt action” and that “[i] n lieu of such action and in consideration of y our corr ective action commitments

. . . , we are issuing this letter of corr ection which wil l b e made a matter of rec ord.” L etter from Christopher B. Be rg en, Manag er, Van Nuy s Mfg

. I nspection Dist. Offic e, FAA
, to Gary Sz erma n, Avia-D y

namics Corp. (Apr . 7, 2008).

More t h an one y ear later, on May 20, 2009, the FAA officia l coordinat i n g t h e S UP i n v estig ation of Avia

rec ommended to his superior that the case be closed, adding that “[a]n Unappr oved Parts Notification (UPN) has been written for these three (3) parts and fo rw arded for relea se.” Memorandum from Tony P ep l owski, SUP Coordinator, FAA
, to Robert Fr anklin
, SUP Foc al Point, FAA
, SUP Case 2007- 00016—Recommenda tion fo r Case Closure (May 20, 2009). The UPN announce d that “A v ia-Dy namics produce d and sold repla ceme nt coff

eemaker brew tray s

. . . without an FAA production ap p ro val” and that Ellipti cal manufa cture d curr ent limit ers and overhe ad rea ding light switches without production5

approva l and then “sold these parts to Avia-D y namics Corporation,

. . . a distributor of aviation parts.” Unappr oved Parts Notifica t i o n, No. 2009-200700016 (June 22, 2009). The UPN urg ed members of the aviation community to searc h their airc raf t and inventories for any of the unapprove d parts “boug ht from Avia-D y

namics Corporation” and “quar antine[] ” the parts “to pre vent installation until a conc lusive determination ca n be made about their elig ibilit y for installation.” Id. Although the UPN wa s d at ed J une 22, 2009, it was not posted on the FAA website until Aug ust 27, 2009. Id.

Av i a first lear

ned of the UPN on September 7, 2009. On that date, one of Avia’s customers called Avia’s president, Gar y Sz erma n, to inform him that the FAA had published the UPN on its website. Acc ording to Sz erma n, standard industry prac tice is
to “blac k-list” any company named in a UPN and Avia attributes a subseque nt “sig nificant downturn in [its] sales” to the FAA ’s action. Sz erma

n Dec l.¶¶ 17, 23, Avia Dynamics , No. 09-1278 (D.C. Cir. Dec

. 10, 2009). Avia soug ht leg al advice on October 2 6, 2009. On October 27, 2009, Avia petitioned for revie w of the FAA order but err oneously filed in the District of Columbi a Court o f Appeals. Avia’s petition was forwa rded to this court, wher e it was filed on N ovember 3, 2009.

II.

We revie w FAA order s pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a)
, which provides that any “per son disclosing a substantial interest in an order” issued by the FAA m ay petition for re v i ew wi thin
t h e statutory deadline set forth there in. Although we h av e 3

S e c t i o n 4 6 1 1 0 ( a ) p r o v i d e s : “ T h e p e t i t i o n m u s t b e f i l e d n o t l a t e r 3

t h a n 6 0 d a y s a f

t e r t h e o r d e r i s i s s u e d

. T h e c o u r t m a y a l l o w t h e p e t i t i o n t o b e f i l e d a f t e r t h e 6 0 t h d a y o n l y i f t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r

n o t f i l i n g b y t h e 6 0 t h d a y

. ” 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 4 6 1 1 0 ( a )

.6

char acte rized section 46110(a) as a jurisdict i o nal statute, see, e.g. , City of Dania Beac h v. FAA
, 628 F.3d 581, 584 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Adams v. FAA
, 550 F.3d 1174, 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
cert. denied
, 130 S. Ct. 103 (2009); Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA
, 509 F.3d 593, 601–02 (D.C. Cir. 2007), we have never held that the limi t a tions portion of section 46110(a) —set forth in the second and third sentenc es—is jurisdictional. Be aring in mind that “[ f]ili ng deadlines, statutory or not, are g ener ally nonjurisdictional,” Menom inee Indian Tribe v. United S t ates , 614 F.3d 519, 523 (D.C. C ir. 2010), we hold that the s ix ty -day deadline here does not constitute a jurisdiction al b ar. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
, 546 U.S. 500, 502 (2006) (if the Congr ess does not “cle arly state[] that a threshold limit ation on

a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional,

. . . . courts should
trea t the res t riction as nonjurisdictional in char acte r”)

. We

assume without deciding that the UP N at issue constitutes a revie wable “orde r” both beca use the FAA conce des as much and beca use it is un n ece ssary to decide the question in light of our dispositi on.
A.

Avia contends that the six ty -day filing period under section 46110(a) did no t b egi n t o run until it rec eived actua l notice of the UPN on September 7, 2009. We beg in our analy sis with the statutory text , bear ing in mind that “whe re filing deadlines are

conce rned, ‘a literal rea ding of Congr ess’ words is g ener ally the

o n ly proper rea ding of those words.’ ” Spannaus v. FEC
, 990 F.2d 643, 644 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Locke
, 471 U.S. 84, 93 (1985))

. S ec t i on 46110(a) require s that a petition be filed within six t y d ay s o f the date the order “is issued,” which we read to mean that the fil ing pe riod beg ins to

run on the date t he order is officia lly made public. See Fla. Manufactured Hous. Ass’n v. C isneros
, 53 F.3d 1565, 1574 (11th Cir. 1995) (“The verb ‘issue’ clea rl y re fer s to an act of7
public announce ment .

. . .”); Black’ s L aw Dictionary 830 (6th ed. 1990) (“issue” as verb means “[t] o send forth; to emit; to promulg ate” ); 8 Ox ford Eng lish Dictionary 137 (2d ed. 1989) (“issue” as ver

b means “ [t ]o give or se nd out authoritatively or officia lly ; to send forth or deal out in a formal or public manner ; to publish”)

. Her e, using its usual proce dure, the FAA “issued” the UP N b y posting the UPN on the FAA ’s website on a pag e d edicated to SUP information. See Orde r 8120.16 ch. 4, ¶ 4(e) (J u l y 15, 2008) (“pr imary method of dissemination” for UP N “will be posting on the SUP website” ). Acc ording ly
, Aug ust 27, 2009, the date of its online posting, is the UPN’s issue date and marks the be g inning of

the six ty -day

statutory filing pe riod.

Avia asser

ts, howeve r, that the filing per i od did not beg in
to run until one of its customers broug ht the UPN to its attention

on September 7, 2009. I n support, Avia relies on Americopte rs, LLC v. FAA
, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006), and Nati o n al Air Transport ation Ass’n v. McArtor
, 866 F.2 d 483 (D.C. Cir. 1989), for the proposition t hat inadequa te notice of an FAA order tolls the six ty -day deadline for filing a petition for revie w. See Americopte rs , 44 1 F.3d at 733 n.5; McArtor
, 866 F.2d at 485. We note
, at the outset, that the passag es Avia relies on are dicta: in both case s, t h e p et itions wer e filed so long afte r the petitioners rec eived actua l notice that t h ey would have been untimely irrespe ctive of the adequa cy of the notice. Americ o p t er s , 441 F.3d at 733; McArtor
, 866 F.2d at 486. I n addition, both of the case s are distinguishable on the fac ts. I n Americopte rs , the “orde r” in question was an ema i l sent by an FAA inspector to an airport revoking the petitioner’s

au t h orization to use the airport’ s runwa y —in eff ect, a priv at e communication about which the petiti o ner knew nothing. 441 F.3d at 729. Her e, by contra st, the FAA made the UPN publicly available on its website—for Avia and any other interested party to see—pur suant to its established proce dure. See Orde r 8120.168

ch. 4, ¶ 4(e) (Jul y 15, 2008). I n McArtor
, the FAA published a rule in the Fe dera l Reg ister with inacc urate bold-fac ed heading s and summary para g raphs that left the mistaken impression the rule was inapplicable to the petitioner, o n ly later issuing an advisory circ ular that clar ified the rule’s applicability

. 866 F.2d at 485–86. Here, on the ot her hand, the UP N l eft no ambig uity that it appli ed to parts either manufa cture d or distributed by Avia. See supra pp. 4–5. We cannot say , there fore
, that the FAA fa iled to draf

t the UPN “in a manner that rea sonably put[ ]
ag g rieve d parties on notice of the [order’s] content

. ” McArtor
, 866 F.2d at 485. Avia’s lack of actua l n o t i ce of the August 27, 2009 UPN posting on the FAA ’s website did not delay the start of the six ty -day fili n g period. See Heide v. FAA
, 110 F. App’x 724, 725 (8th Ci r. 2 0 04) (unpublished) (“The fac t that Petitioners wer e not persona lly aw ar e of the order until Dec ember of 2002 is irrele vant, as it is t he date of the order ’s issuance that is pertinent under § 46110(a) .”), cert. denied
, 544 U.S. 1018 (2005).

Nor is Avia’s notice argument aided by its conte n t i o n that the FAA was require d to serve notice of the UPN u n d er 49 U.S.C. § 46105(b), which require s that an “orde r” issued by the FA A Administrator “shall be serve d on the parties to t h e proce eding an d t h e persons aff ecte d by the order ,” or under section 46103, which presc ribes the p ro cedur e for service on parties and aff

ecte d persons. Although we assume the UPN qualifies as a revie wable “orde r” under section 46110(a)
, supra p. 6, we do not consider the UPN an “orde r” within the meaning of ever y provision of the Fe d era l Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et s eq. Section 46110(a) provides the mechanism for “a person disclosing a substantial interest” to challeng e an FAA “orde r.” We have broadly construed the word “orde r” as used in section 46110(a) beca

use of its function in providing for judicial revie w. Thus, we rec ently held that “orde r” in se ction 46110(a)9

“should be re ad ‘e x pansively ’ ” but li mited our construction to

“ this provision ”—re fer

ring t o s ection 46110(a) only

. City of Da n i a Beac h v. FAA
, 485 F.3d 1181, 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (empha sis ad d ed ) (quoting Aviators for Safe & Fairer Regulation, Inc. v. FAA
, 221 F.3d 222, 225 (1st Cir. 2000)); see al s o A viat ors , 221 F.3d at 225 (“The term ‘orde r’ is rea d expansively in revie w statutes g ener ally

. . . and this statute specific ally .”); Aerosource

, Inc. v. Slater
, 142 F.3d 572, 578 (3d C ir. 1998) (“[T]o be revie wable under section 46110(a)
, an ‘orde r’ must be final, but need not be a formal order

. . . .”); New Y ork v. FAA
, 712 F.2d 806, 808 (2d Cir. 1983) (“F or purposes of revie w under [predece ssor provision to section 46110(a) ], the
term ‘orde r’ should rec eive a liberal construction.”)

. I ndeed, we have long rec og nized a specie s of FAA action—a so-ca lled “informa l adjudication”—that qualifies as a revie wable “orde r” under section 46110(a)

. We have not held, howeve r, t h at an informal adjudication must be formally serve d as presc ribed by sections 46103 and 46105(b). Cf. McArtor
, 866 F.2d at 486 (F AA advis ory circ ular started six ty -day filing period wher e petitioner “norma lly rec eives such circ ulars from the FAA ” and publication in Fe d er al Reg ister “ale rted airc raf t operators g ener ally ”); Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA
, 509 F.3d 593, 598–600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (F AA advi s o ry circ ular is revie wable “orde r” under section 46110(a) but also “fa ll[ s] into the vast categ ory

of ‘infor mal adjudications’ in w hich ag encie s routinely eng ag e” and t hus is not subject t o APA require m en t s

o f n o tice and comment and rec ord proce eding ); Clark Cty. v. FAA
, 522 F.3d 437, 440–41 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (F AA “Does Not E x c e e d ” d e t e r m i n at i o n i s r e v i e w a b l e “ o r d e r ” u n d e r section 46110(a) but also “informa l adjudication” not subject to APA require ment of rec ord hear ing) ; Hudson v. FAA
, 192 F.3d 1031, 1032, 1035–36 (D.C. C ir. 1999) (FAA issuance of “ty pe

cer tificate” allowing production of Boe ing 777-300 is “mer ely

an administrative action, a so-ca lled informal adjudication” not10
subject to APA notice and comment require ments). We conclude that a UPN, as an informal order t h at i s advis ory in
nature , is not subject t o the proc edura l require ments laid out in 49 U.S.C. § 46103 and 49 U.S.C. § 46105(b).

Acc ording ly
, we conclude that the six ty -day clock beg an to tic k o n Aug ust 27, 2009, the date the FAA posted the UPN on its website. Be ca u s e Avia filed its petition for revie w in this
court six ty -eig ht day s later, on November 3, 2009, its petition is untimely

. B. Finally
, Avia argues that it had “re asonable g rounds” for its untimely filing. The FAA contends that Avia has waived the issue. Ordinar ily
, we do not consider an argument raised for the 4 first time in a reply brief so that the appellee is ensure d an opportunity to respond. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jack son , 610 F.3d 110, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Her e, howeve r, the FAA was on notice of Avia’s “re asonable g rounds” argument based on Avi a ’ s p r e v io u s motions; indeed, the FAA thoroug hly responde d to the arg ument in its brief to this court. Resp’t’s Br. 26–30. I n any event, even if Avia has not waived the argument, it is unavailing beca use we have here tofore fo u nd “re asonable g rounds” only in case s in which the peti t i oner attributes the delay to more than simply ignor ance of the order

. See Safe Extensions
, 509 F.3d at 602–04 (finding “re asonable g rounds” wher e FAA made statements that “could have confuse d petitioner and others” about whether order

T h e w o r d s “ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” d o n o t a p p e a r a n y w h e r e i n 4
A v i a ’ s o p e n i n g b r i e f b u t , i n i t s r e p l y b r i e f
, A v i a s t a t e s t h a t t h e

a r g u m e n t a r t i c u l a t e d i n i t s o p e n i n g b r i e f

— a b o u t t h e F A A ’ s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e o r s e r v i c e o f t h e U P N

— i n f a c t a r g u e s t h e

“ r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s ” e x c e p t i o n

. R e p l y B r

. 5 ( c i t i n g P e t ’ r ’ s B r

. 3 8

– 4 2 )

.11

would be revised) ; Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. CAB
, 752 F.2d 694, 705 n.82 (D.C. Cir. 198 5 ) (finding “re asonable g rounds” wher e petitioners wer e “[a]ware that the rule m i ght be underg oing modific ation, and unable to predic t how extensive
any modification would be” and there fore “ele cted to wait until the reg ulation was in final form befor e seeking revie w”)
, rev’ d

on o t her grounds sub nom. U.S. Dep’ t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of A m. , 477 U.S. 597 (1986). Eve n if ignor ance could

es t ablish “re asonable g rounds,” it would not excuse Avia’s continued inaction during the forty -nine day s fro m September 7, 2009, the date of Avia’s actua l notice, unti l the fi ling period closed on October 26, 2009. Finally
, Avia’s contention that the l ack of formal notice constitutes “re asonable g rounds” fo r untimely filing g ains no more trac tion here than it did under our prec edent discusse d ear lier. See supra pp. 8–10.

For the fore g oing rea sons, the petition for revie w is denied.

So ordered.