Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.
921 Mainstreet, Hopkins, MN, 55343
Tel (952) 238-1060 Fax (952) 238-1099
Email: info@aerolegalservices.com


Follow ReigelLaw on Twitter
 
[Top Background]
Aviation Law Discussions Subscribe XML

A site devoted to aviation law, safety and security.

December 30, 2008

Purchasing An Aircraft Hangar

Are you considering purchasing an aircraft hangar? Is so, do you know what steps you should take to protect yourself in the transaction and to make sure you receive what you are expecting to receive? For more information on what a buyer can do to ensure a successful aircraft hangar purchase, please read my latest article on the subject here.

Posted by Greg

December 09, 2008

2009 Aviation Excise Tax Rates

If you operate a private or commercial business aircraft you pay Federal excise taxes (FET) either on fuel or on the transportation of persons or property. Most private aircraft operations under FAR Part 91 are subject to the fuel tax on non-commercial aviation, while commercial aircraft operations under FAR Part 135 are subject to the tax on transportation of persons or property. For calendar year 2009, the commercial operations excise taxes will be as follows: the domestic segment fee will be $3.60; the international arrival/departure tax will be $16.10; and the tax for Hawaii and Alaska flights (which applies only to departures) will be $8.00; and the tax for domestic commercial air transportation will be 7.5 percent tax. The 2009 tax rates are applicable until March 31, 2009, when the current FAA reauthorization extension will expire. The rates may change at that time, depending upon what Congress does with the FAA reauthorization.

Posted by Greg

December 02, 2008

Dismissal Not Required When ALJ Fails To Schedule Hearing Within 30 Days Of Request For Hearing On Emergency Revocation Order

The National Transportation Safety Board recently disregarded one of its Rules of Practice for enforcement hearings and affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") refusal to dismiss a case whose hearing was not scheduled by the ALJ in accordance with Board rules. In Administrator v. Johnston the FAA issued an emergency revocation order revoking the airman's commercial pilot certificate and first class medical certificate based on alleged violations of FARs 61.15(d) and (e) (two motor vehicle actions withing 3 years and failure to report a motor vehicle action within 60 days) and 67.403(a)(1) (prohibition against making fraudulent or intentionally false statements on an application for medical certificate). The airman appealed the order to the NTSB and the ALJ held the hearing 34 days after receiving the airman's request for a hearing.

At the end of the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision affirming the violations as alleged by the FAA. The airman did not appeal the ALJ's findings on the merits of the case. Rather, the airman appealed the ALJ's decision based upon the procedural argument that the ALJ should have dismissed the case in accordance with the airman’s motion to dismiss before the commencement of the hearing, because the ALJ had violated 49 C.F.R. § 821.56(a) by not scheduling the hearing to occur within 30 days of the Board's receipt of a request for hearing on the emergency revocation order (§ 821.56(a) provides that the "hearing shall be set for a date no later than 30 days after the date on which the respondent's appeal was received and docketed"). The airman also argued that the Board did not show good cause for its failure to schedule the hearing within 30 days and that the failure amounted to a due process violation.

On appeal, the Board rejected the airman's argument that the Board’s failure to comply with its own policy of scheduling hearings within 30 days was a jurisdictional issue. The Board noted that the airman had not identified any statute requiring the Board to set a hearing within 30 days of receipt of the airman’s appeal. Rather, the Board observed that the 30-day deadline is a self-imposed deadline designed to set forth the Board's internal procedures for handling emergency orders.

In response to the airman's argument that the Board has consistently held that briefs that parties submit that are untimely must be dismissed in the absence of a showing of good cause, the Board similarly noted the absence of any authority holding that the Board must establish that good cause existed for its delay. The Board further held that neither the ALJ nor the FAA had denied the airman due process of law because the airman had the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses at the administrative hearing.

Finally, the Board found that the airman had not shown that a "slight delay" in the Board’s scheduling of the hearing caused the hearing to be meaningless or otherwise caused the airman harm and, as a result, the delay in scheduling the hearing did not render the FAA’s complaint unenforceable.

Apparently the word "shall" in § 821.56(a) doesn't apply to the Board, although it is strictly applied to airmen and the FAA when it appears in the Board's other rules. Not sure why this is so when § 821.2 states that the provisions of Part 821 "govern all air safety proceedings." Seems like authority to me.

Posted by Greg

Aviation Law Discussions - Archives

12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003
01/01/2004 - 01/31/2004
02/01/2004 - 02/29/2004
03/01/2004 - 03/31/2004
04/01/2004 - 04/30/2004
05/01/2004 - 05/31/2004
06/01/2004 - 06/30/2004
07/01/2004 - 07/31/2004
08/01/2004 - 08/31/2004
09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004
10/01/2004 - 10/31/2004
11/01/2004 - 11/30/2004
12/01/2004 - 12/31/2004
01/01/2005 - 01/31/2005
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005
03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005
05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005
06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005
07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005
08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005
10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005
11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005
12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005
01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006
02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006
04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006
05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006
06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006
07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006
09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006
10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006
11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006
12/01/2006 - 12/31/2006
01/01/2007 - 01/31/2007
02/01/2007 - 02/28/2007
03/01/2007 - 03/31/2007
04/01/2007 - 04/30/2007
05/01/2007 - 05/31/2007
06/01/2007 - 06/30/2007
07/01/2007 - 07/31/2007
08/01/2007 - 08/31/2007
09/01/2007 - 09/30/2007
10/01/2007 - 10/31/2007
11/01/2007 - 11/30/2007
12/01/2007 - 12/31/2007
01/01/2008 - 01/31/2008
02/01/2008 - 02/29/2008
03/01/2008 - 03/31/2008
04/01/2008 - 04/30/2008
05/01/2008 - 05/31/2008
06/01/2008 - 06/30/2008
07/01/2008 - 07/31/2008
08/01/2008 - 08/31/2008
09/01/2008 - 09/30/2008
10/01/2008 - 10/31/2008
11/01/2008 - 11/30/2008
12/01/2008 - 12/31/2008
01/01/2009 - 01/31/2009
02/01/2009 - 02/28/2009
03/01/2009 - 03/31/2009
04/01/2009 - 04/30/2009
05/01/2009 - 05/31/2009
06/01/2009 - 06/30/2009
07/01/2009 - 07/31/2009
08/01/2009 - 08/31/2009
09/01/2009 - 09/30/2009
10/01/2009 - 10/31/2009
11/01/2009 - 11/30/2009
12/01/2009 - 12/31/2009
01/01/2010 - 01/31/2010
02/01/2010 - 02/28/2010
03/01/2010 - 03/31/2010
04/01/2010 - 04/30/2010
05/01/2010 - 05/31/2010
06/01/2010 - 06/30/2010
07/01/2010 - 07/31/2010
08/01/2010 - 08/31/2010
09/01/2010 - 09/30/2010
10/01/2010 - 10/31/2010
11/01/2010 - 11/30/2010
12/01/2010 - 12/31/2010
01/01/2011 - 01/31/2011
02/01/2011 - 02/28/2011
03/01/2011 - 03/31/2011
05/01/2011 - 05/31/2011
06/01/2011 - 06/30/2011
07/01/2011 - 07/31/2011
08/01/2011 - 08/31/2011
09/01/2011 - 09/30/2011
10/01/2011 - 10/31/2011
11/01/2011 - 11/30/2011
12/01/2011 - 12/31/2011
01/01/2012 - 01/31/2012
02/01/2012 - 02/29/2012
03/01/2012 - 03/31/2012
04/01/2012 - 04/30/2012
05/01/2012 - 05/31/2012
06/01/2012 - 06/30/2012
07/01/2012 - 07/31/2012
08/01/2012 - 08/31/2012
10/01/2012 - 10/31/2012
11/01/2012 - 11/30/2012
12/01/2012 - 12/31/2012
02/01/2013 - 02/28/2013
04/01/2013 - 04/30/2013
05/01/2013 - 05/31/2013
06/01/2013 - 06/30/2013
07/01/2013 - 07/31/2013
08/01/2013 - 08/31/2013
11/01/2013 - 11/30/2013
12/01/2013 - 12/31/2013
01/01/2014 - 01/31/2014
02/01/2014 - 02/28/2014

< ? law blogs # >

The information contained in this web-site is intended for the education and benefit of the Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.'s clients and prospective clients. The information should not be relied upon as advice to help you with your specific issue. Each case is unique and must be analyzed by an attorney licensed to practice in your area with respect to the particular facts and applicable current law before any advice can be given. Sending an e-mail to the Reigel Law Firm, Ltd. does not create an attorney-client relationship. Advice will not be given by e-mail until an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.-Aero Legal Services 2002-Present. All rights reserved.