Opinion ID: 4282082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “final” orders of the NTSB. 49 U.S.C. § 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. Id. A party’s timely filing of a motion for reconsideration, however, “renders the underlying order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review,” thereby tolling the time to appeal. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995). The FAA argues that Boeta’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for seeking judicial review of the Remand Order because the motion was untimely. Specifically, the FAA argues that because Boeta failed to timely serve the motion on the FAA, his motion was untimely filed. Assuming arguendo that Chevron 1 deference applies to this question, we conclude that Boeta timely filed his motion for reconsideration for purposes of tolling. The NTSB issued the Remand Order on December 19, 2016, and Boeta filed his motion for reconsideration on January 17, 2017, which is within the thirty days required by NTSB’s rules. 49 C.F.R. § 821.50(b). On June 2, 2017, the NTSB dismissed Boeta’s motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with § 821.50(b)’s service requirements. Boeta asserts that he did serve the FAA’s counsel, via first-class mail (see 49 C.F.R. 821.8(b)), on January 17, 2017 1See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706. 3 Case: 17-60546 Document: 00514503214 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2018 No. 17-60546 and stated on the certificate of service that “all counsel of record” were served. The NTSB, however, refused to “presume service.” The NTSB, however, did not make factual findings as to Boeta’s counsel’s truthfulness in stating that he did serve the FAA’s counsel. Even assuming arguendo that Boeta untimely served the FAA, it does not follow that he untimely filed his motion for reconsideration. Indeed, the NTSB order itself states, “[Boeta’s] petition [for reconsideration] was filed timely.” Additionally, the NTSB rules state that “[t]he filing of a petition [for reconsideration] shall operate to stay the effective date of the [NTSB’s] order, unless the [NTSB] directs otherwise.” 2 49 C.F.R. § 821.50(f) (emphasis added). Boeta sought review of the Remand Order in this court on July 31, 2017, which is within sixty days of the NTSB’s dismissal of his motion for reconsideration. Because the Remand Order was not final for purposes of judicial review until the NTSB dismissed Boeta’s motion for reconsideration, Boeta’s petition for judicial review was “within the time prescribed by law.” See FED. R. APP. P. 15(a); see also 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a); cf. Collins v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 351 F.3d 1246, 1250–51 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (concluding that a petition for review filed forty-four days after the NTSB dismissed a motion for reconsideration was timely assuming the motion suspended the time limit for seeking review). This conclusion is consistent with both the NTSB rules and the tolling rule, as in Boeta’s case “there [was] always a possibility that the order complained of w[ould] be modified in a way which renders judicial review unnecessary.” Stone, 514 U.S. at 392 (quoting Outland v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 284 F.2d 224, 227 (D.C. Cir. 1960)). We conclude, therefore, that we have appellate jurisdiction. 2Nothing in the record indicates that the NTSB specifically directed that Boeta’s filing of his motion for reconsideration would not stay the Remand Order’s effective date. 4 Case: 17-60546 Document: 00514503214 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/06/2018 No. 17-60546