[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-28074] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 15, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part VII National Transportation Safety Board _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Parts 821 and 826 Rules of Practice for Aviation and Civil Penalty Proceedings; Final Rules NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 49 CFR Part 821 Aviation Rules of Practice; General Revisions AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board. ACTION: Final rules. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The NTSB is adopting numerous revisions to its rules of practice governing air safety enforcement and related cases. These revisions are intended to improve the efficiency and fairness of these rules of practice. EFFECTIVE DATE: The new rules are effective on January 17, 1995. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane F. Mackall, (202) 382-6540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice (NPR) in the Federal Register published October 20, 1993 (58 FR 54102), the NTSB proposed to revise its rules, at 49 CFR Part 821, that govern practice and procedure in aviation safety enforcement and related cases. The NPR identified a number of rules that we believed should be revised, and we invited users of our rules to recommend other rule changes they considered necessary or desirable. We received six comments and two replies.1 What follows is a rule-by-rule discussion of the changes we are adopting here.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Comments were filed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), attorney Mark T. McDermott, the National Transportation Safety Board Bar Association (NTSB Bar), and North American Aviation Properties, Inc. (NAAP). Replies were filed by the FAA and NAAP. \2\Where the parties had no comments and we have no further changes, the proposed rule is adopted without discussion. There are also minor editorial changes that we have not discussed. Changes proposed by the parties but not adopted here have been considered nevertheless. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Although we proposed no change to Sec. 821.1, which contains definitions used in the rules of practice, the FAA proposes that we expand the definition of ``initial decision'' to include orders on motions that have the effect of terminating the proceeding, such as motions for summary judgment. We will adopt that suggestion. 2. We proposed adding a new Sec. 821.3 in which the letter prefixes of our docket-numbering system are explained. The NTSB Bar comments that the current numbering system is self-explanatory, and sees no need for the proposed addition. In contrast, NAAP thinks this change is useful, especially for pro se participants in Board proceedings. We can see only benefits, and adopt the proposal, as corrected by the FAA.3 We have considered the FAA's other proposed additions, but do not believe them necessary to this relatively simple rule, nor do we see a need to include the FAA case number on our documents. We have, however, updated the statutory citations to reflect the new codification completed in Pub. L. 103-272. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\The FAA notes that ``CD'' stands for certificate denial, not certificates of denial. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We proposed to revise Sec. 821.6(d) to require notices of appearance from parties' representatives as well as their attorneys. NAAP contends that pro se participants should be discouraged and objects to provisions allowing the participation of non-attorney representatives. We recognize disadvantages in pro se participation and, in our information provided respondents on their filing of a notice of appeal, we invite early retention of counsel. We will not, however, go further, as we do not intend to place greater burdens on respondents by requiring them to hire and pay counsel. Neither the Board's enabling statute nor the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requires representation only by attorneys. NAAP's citation to the FA Act, Sec. 1001, relating to the precursor Civil Aeronautics Board, does not govern. 4. Our current rules contain many different copy requirements that often are not followed by the parties. In subparagraph Sec. 821.7(b), we proposed to reduce the number to an original and 1 copy, except where otherwise provided in the rules. We attempted throughout to minimize the number of copies required of the parties. We sought comment especially on whether there should be one uniform copy requirement of an original and 4 copies. In this rule, we also proposed to permit filing and service of pleadings via facsimile transmission. Most parties that commented on the copy requirement prefer a uniform requirement of an original and 1 copy. We will adopt one rule for all documents, but must require more than 1 copy, as that is not always adequate for our use (for example, we need more than 1 copy of briefs). At a time when the government is increasingly assessing fees for services, it would be inappropriate for the Board to subsidize parties' copying expenses. An original and 3 copies will be required. Our proposal to allow filing by facsimile produced more questions and complications than expected. Accordingly, we will continue current practice and not adopt the proposal. Faxes may continue to be used as a convenience, for example when immediate receipt by the Board is required, but will not substitute for any filing or copy requirement of these rules. Thus, the document that is faxed must also be sent to the Board via an authorized service method, with the confirmation copy to be noted as such (to minimize confusion). This is normal business practice, and will not create a problem for the Board provided parties properly indicate confirmation copies. As recommended, we have added addresses and details the parties suggested. We will defer, pending technology improvements, the proposal that we accept two-sided copies. 5. The most significant changes proposed to Sec. 821.8 related to our use of certified mail in serving our decisions and our addition of a sample certificate of service. As to service by others, we have adopted the suggested changes to the sample certificate. As to our service via certified mail, we will adopt the proposed change. That is, we will discontinue serving the FAA via certified mail. We are aware of no receipt problem, having had no difficulty receiving first class mail sent us by the FAA. We are not persuaded by the FAA's equal treatment argument. Certified mail for respondents is appropriate, in light of the nature of the proceedings and their effect on them. It was suggested that the Board place the service date on the front of every document it serves. We agree, and will do so. We do not agree, however, with the suggestion that, prior to the appearance of an attorney or other representative, service be made not only on the carrier's designated agent (see Sec. 821.8(d)), but also on the carrier's chief executive. The purpose of the agent here is to receive service; it is reasonable to expect the agent will promptly advise its principal. 6. Our proposal, in Sec. 821.9, to liberalize the filing of amicus curiae briefs was well received. We do not, however, see the need to adopt the FAA's suggestion that the standard for filing be the same as for intervention generally. The rule is intended to be more flexible: amicus briefs are encouraged, but may be disallowed if too late. EAA and NAAP, in connection with their discussion of amicus briefs, recommend that the Board hear oral argument more often, and object to current rule Sec. 821.48(g), which provides that it will not normally be held. We are not inclined to change our rules or practice in this regard. The Aviation Safety Enforcement docket lends itself to review on a written record. On appeal, the issues are clearly set forth, and may be fully argued in writing. Nevertheless, where we believe oral argument, with discussion and questioning, would be useful, we will not hesitate to schedule it. Accordingly, the rule is adopted as proposed. 7. In our NPR, we invited suggestions for rule changes other than those we proposed. The NTSB Bar proposed to permit parties to stipulate to extensions of time ``or other appropriate relief'' and to provide that extensions of time or other relief will be granted where there has been ``excusable neglect'' and no prejudice results. We decline to adopt this proposed change. The Board must be able to control its proceedings and liberally grants extensions. We will, however, codify our existing practice by adding a provision to Sec. 821.11 allowing oral requests for extension of time. 8. Our first proposed change to Sec. 821.12, adding a reference to compliance with statutory requirements in making amendments to a complaint, engendered considerable discussion. Mark McDermott comments that the FAA is making too many last-minute amendments, and suggests that the Board should prohibit amendments in emergency cases. NAAP believes that our proposed reference is too narrow. It proposes, and argues that the law requires, that the Administrator be required to reissue any amended order, and that amendment at the hearing not be permitted. The FAA responds that a rule requiring amendments to be consistent with informal conference requirements is not necessary, but if one is adopted, our proposal should be modified because the statute can be met by other means. It recommends we include language directly from (former) 49 U.S.C. App. 1429(a). The FAA continues that amendments to complaints should be allowed by the law judge when respondent will not be unduly prejudiced and that technical amendments should be permitted at any time. It notes that parties are already able to object to amendments that do not comply with Oceanair of Florida v. Nat. Transp. Safety Bd., 888 F.2d 767 (11th Cir. 1989). We are not convinced that our current practice does not adequately balance the interests and rights of the parties. The law judge has discretion to allow amendment of the complaint, and does so only after full consideration of the positions of the parties and a finding that amendment will not prejudice respondent, or prohibit a fair hearing. Commentors have pointed to no particular case where they believe these concerns were not properly balanced, and the number of amendments, per se, does not control any conclusion in this regard. Accordingly, we will not amend the rule to restrict complaint amendments but will continue to handle the question case by case. There were no comments on our proposal to permit withdrawal of some pleadings without our permission, and we will adopt that language as drafted. 9. We offered no proposed change to Sec. 821.13, which governs the manner in which a party may waive rights (for example, the statutory right in an emergency case that a decision be issued in 60 days). The FAA proposes that we allow oral waivers, especially oral waiver of expedited review in emergencies, as the FAA believes this is common practice. We agree, however, with NAAP, which replies that waivers need to be on the record, and this is what the rule currently requires. To the extent it is not being done (and we are not aware of a serious problem in this regard), the potential for later disputes increases, and we encourage all parties to ensure that waivers are memorialized in the record in some fashion. 10. In light of the parties' suggestions that we specify in the rules to what office documents should be sent, we will amend Sec. 821.14 to include a reference to the Office of General Counsel, rather than the current broad reference to the Board. 11. The rule changes proposed to Sec. 821.19 involve discovery and the preservation of evidence. Mark McDermott suggests that we should only require that discovery documents be filed with the law judges when there is a dispute. The FAA agrees, arguing that review of this material can prejudice the law judge due to prehearing familiarity with a document that is subsequently excluded. NAAP disagrees, and believes that law judges should have prehearing familiarity with the issues and have the skills to disregard excluded evidence. We have found that both discovery requests and responses are useful in reaching an informed decision, and we see no justifiable concern that our law judges are unable to ignore information they may have read that is later excluded from the record. Advance information about the case, as can come from familiarity with the discovery materials, promotes efficient processing and allows the law judge to be as prepared as the parties when the hearing starts. The parties also commented extensively on their perceptions of inequities in the discovery process. Mr. McDermott, for example, seeks a rule specifically to authorize protective orders in the case of FAA harassment through excessive discovery. EAA questions whether our proposed change to subparagraph (d) is strong enough. It and NAAP support a more explicit rule authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with discovery. NAAP also seeks a rule that precludes the FAA from using discovery as a substitute for a prior investigation,4 and believes that the proposed subparagraph (d) does not do enough to prevent destruction of relevant evidence, namely air traffic control tapes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\NAAP cites Administrator v. Smith, 4 NTSB 978, 979 note 6 (1983), in support, but we do not read that case so broadly as to warrant an absolute rule. The decision demonstrates, to the contrary, that the circumstances of each case must be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FAA, in turn, believes that expansive discovery should be curtailed, and replies to NAAP that subparagraph (d) is not necessary in light of Administrator v. Ryan, NTSB Order EA-3238 (1990) (when evidence has been requested in a timely fashion, it is incumbent on the Administrator to ensure its safekeeping). If we adopt this proposal, the FAA argues, its language should be more specific and separate the failure to preserve from the failure to produce. The FAA also suggests numerous interpretive difficulties with the wording of this proposed rule. The parties' disagreement regarding evidence production, and ATC tapes in particular, stems from the FAA's practice of reusing tapes in 15-day cycles if no request to preserve the tape has been made. We have accepted this practice as a reasonable accommodation of the interests of both the FAA and airmen. We have no authority to force FAA to amend its practice, nor are we convinced by the arguments made here that the FAA's failure to preserve a tape should in every case result in an adverse conclusion regarding its contents.5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\In connection with review of our discovery rules, we have considered the recent amendment to the Federal Rules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beyond that, and as a general rule, we believe that the proposed rule is flexible, merely reflects our current precedent and practice, and will allow our law judges, as appropriate, ample authority to compel discovery, to curtail its abuse, and to fashion appropriate remedies in the event it is demonstrated that either party unreasonably has failed to respond completely or has improperly failed to preserve timely requested evidence. 12. In Sec. 821.20(c), we proposed changes that would codify case law on witness fees and apply to Board employee witnesses in enforcement cases the same rules we apply to the testimony of our employees in accident-related civil proceedings. We received only one comment, suggesting that this rule be expanded to FAA employees as well, thus potentially limiting the testimony of FAA personnel who assisted the Board in its investigation. This is relevant in cases where an investigation of an accident or incident is followed by an FAA enforcement action. The FAA opposes this proposal, stating it would raise questions about the FAA's ability or willingness to assist the Board in its investigations. We are well aware of NAAP's concerns, but are not convinced that the rule it proposes should be adopted. Our declination here, however, should not be interpreted as lack of interest in the issue. To the contrary, we specifically reserve the point, and intend to study it in the future and continue to discuss with the FAA the proper relationship between the two functions. 13. We proposed minor changes to Sec. 821.24(d), dealing with medical proceedings, to reflect the special issuance process. Mr. McDermott proposes to make the exchange of medical information a mutual obligation instead of putting restrictions on new evidence only on petitioner, as the rule does. He believes that the FAA should be precluded from using medical evidence not provided petitioner at least 30 days before the hearing. FAA responds that, as a practical matter, all medical evidence is in respondent's hands. Our change in (e) was intended simply to address the situation where, prior to hearing, but unknown to the FAA, a petitioner undergoes new testing or evaluation. If this occurs, the FAA is denied the opportunity to review, in advance of the hearing, medical conclusions that may be different from the medical information (typically obtained from petitioner or from his physicians, with his consent) on which the FAA's denial of certification was based. If the FAA is surprised at the hearing by new evidence, it must have the opportunity for its experts to review the information.6 In contrast, from a petitioner's standpoint, whatever medical data the FAA has received is either familiar to petitioner, having come from his own doctors, or is discoverable by him prior to the hearing. While we therefore will not make this change proposed by Mr. McDermott, we will add a clarifying sentence to subparagraph (d) explicitly indicating our lack of jurisdiction to review or order special issuances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\Potentially, that review could lead to a change in the FAA's position and issuance of a certificate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Section 821.31(a), dealing with filing of the complaint, had produced some confusion in the past due to use of the phrase ``filed upon the Administrator'' (see Administrator v. Simonton, NTSB Order EA- 3734 (1992)), and we proposed to change the phrase to ``received by the Administrator.'' This produced similar concerns. AOPA and Mr. McDermott think this makes the rule more confusing, and suggest that we count from a service date, as we use service dates for other purposes and this will help the infrequent user of the rules. We agree. The rule will provide that the complaint must be filed within 10 days of service of the notice of appeal on the Administrator. This will also respond to the FAA's concern that the current 5 days is too short.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\We are not convinced, however, that the FAA needs 20 days for this filing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Although we proposed no change, a number of parties commented on our stale complaint rule, Sec. 821.33. The NTSB Bar, in cases where 6 months has passed before a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action has been issued, wants the FAA's complaint to contain a certification that good cause existed for the delay, and where lack of qualification is alleged, the certification would state that this allegation was made in good faith and was warranted under the facts and the law. The FAA opposes these suggestions, citing our earlier rejection of a certification requirement (Regulatory Docket No. 5, 11/29/88). The comments of Mark McDermott and the FAA reflect some confusion in the meaning and implementing of subparagraph (b) of the stale complaint rule (i.e., where lack of qualification is alleged, law judge first determines whether it is presented and, if an issue of qualification is raised, the law judge is to proceed to a hearing on that issue only). The FAA disagrees, however, with Mr. McDermott's comment that failure to establish lack of qualifications requires dismissal of stale allegations, noting that it still has the opportunity to justify the delay or show public interest in proceeding despite the delay. We recognize that subparagraph (b) of the stale complaint rule has caused some interpretive difficulty in the past, but the problem has not been insurmountable and does not require immediate amendment. Because issues regarding this rule are raised in connection with our proposed (and interim) civil penalty rules, we will defer any rule changes here. 16. In response to our proposed change to subparagraph (a) of Sec. 821.37, dealing with the selection of the place for hearing, the FAA agrees that foreign hearings should be rare if we have authority to hold them, but believes we do not. In support, it argues that Sec. 5(1) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-670, authorized Civil Aeronautics Board hearings only in the U.S. Although the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 has no similar language, the FAA argues, we should not assume change was intended. Our enabling statute does not prohibit foreign hearings, as Congress easily could have done given the prior language. Accordingly, we are not convinced, based on the FAA's argument, that we should change the rule here. Although we will adopt the rule as proposed, any party is free to argue this point further in a particular case. 17. We proposed to change the evidence rule found in Sec. 821.38 to codify our recent ruling in Administrator v. Repacholi, NTSB Order No. EA-3888 (1993), permitting hearsay in Board proceedings, with its trustworthiness going to the weight and credibility accorded it. Those commentors in opposition (Mark McDermott and AOPA) have not convinced us that our judges are not equipped fairly to measure trustworthiness and credibility of all forms of hearsay, just as they otherwise weigh credibility, and we believe NAAP's changes create unreasonable hurdles to the use of such evidence--even greater hurdles than now exist. The parties uniformly had difficulty with our proposal in subparagraph (c) to assume the authenticity of evidence absent an objection. It appears that implementation problems would outweigh any benefit such a rule might have in our proceedings and, therefore, we will not adopt it. Nevertheless, we encourage parties to use requests to admit as well as stipulations to establish the authenticity of documents in advance of a hearing. In response to the FAA's comment that subparagraph (b) does not properly reflect the Administrative Procedure Act, we will amend that provision, and we will modify the offer of proof language to make it permissive, rather than mandatory. 18. The NTSB Bar has proposed that, in Sec. 821.42 (initial decisions by law judges), we require the law judge include in his opinion whether the Administrator was substantially justified so that a later EAJA\8\ case may be expedited. The FAA responds, and we agree, that this is premature and wasteful (e.g., qualification for fee recovery not having been determined) and inconsistent with the separate statutory EAJA scheme that requires a final Board order on the merits. The practice of the same law judge hearing any EAJA application promotes the efficient administration the commentor seeks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\Equal Access to Justice Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. Although there were only supporting comments to our proposed change in Sec. 821.47, we are adding a discussion here of when the law judge loses jurisdiction, with further action being by the Board itself. The addition in part reflects current law (see Administrator v. Doll, NTSB Order EA-3439 (1991) at footnote 9), and is being added in light of frequent questions in this regard. The new portion of the rule provides a method for handling requests to a law judge that he reconsider his own decision. For obvious reasons, the new procedure will not apply in emergency cases. 20. In response to our proposed revisions to Sec. 821.48(e), NAAP suggests that we remove the sentence in subparagraph (g) regarding oral argument. As discussed in connection with Sec. 821.9, we decline to make this change, and in light of our conclusions regarding a uniform copy requirement, we will delete subparagraph (f). Although NAAP also proposes a shorter version of (e), we believe our proposed language is more appropriate to assist the many pro se participants in our proceedings. 21. We proposed to revise Secs. 821.49 and 821.57(c) to indicate that, if the Board raises a new issue it finds necessary to resolve the proceeding, it will afford the parties the opportunity to submit argument if it believes that such an opportunity is necessary or appropriate. We received a number of comments in opposition to this change, but believe they stem from misunderstanding of our practice and our intent. We have used this approach on many occasions, with no complaint from any party. Compare, e.g., Administrator v. Nyren, NTSB Order EA- 3930 (1993) (Board reopened for further argument on effect of the FAA Civil Penalty Administrative Assessment Act of 1992 on the shared expense rule) and Administrator v. Miller, NTSB Order EA-3581 (1992) (Board redefined issue before it and dismissed complaint on finding that Administrator's interpretation of his rule was not reasonable); Administrator v. Shuster, NTSB Order EA-3613 (1992) (Board dismissed certain charges based on its interpretation of medical application); and Administrator v. Frohmuth and Dworak, NTSB Order EA-3816 (1993) (Board dismissed complaints based on a new, expanded formulation of case law excusing altitude deviations caused by pilot mistake). Furthermore, Board action is subject to review on petition for reconsideration. On further review, we have conformed the language in Sec. 821.57 with the language in Sec. 821.49. 22. The parties offered no comment regarding our proposed change to Sec. 821.50, but NAAP proposes that we amend subparagraph (f) to indicate that the filing of a petition under this section will always stay the effective date of the order. We decline to make this change. As we recently noted in Administrator v. Frost, NTSB Order EA-3989 (1993), we agree with this sentiment as a general rule. Nevertheless, NAAP has not convinced us that we do not and should not retain the flexibility (whether specifically expressed in our rules or not) to order otherwise should extraordinary circumstances warrant. 23. In addition to our wording change to Sec. 821.54 to reflect proceedings under Section 609(c)(3) of the Federal Aviation Act where the Administrator issues ``immediately effective'' orders, see Administrator v. Zacher, NTSB Order EA-3972 (1993), the FAA recommends, and we agree, that the title of Subpart I should be changed to ``Rules Applicable to Emergency Proceedings and other Immediately Effective Orders.'' As to the substance of that rule, the parties urge a stricter construction in various ways. The NTSB Bar and EAA ask us to add a requirement to subparagraph (a) that the FAA justify the emergency, and the NTSB Bar urges that the issue of whether a case is an emergency be subject to our review separately from the merits of the case. Mr. McDermott recommends that the statute be strictly construed in favor of respondents and that the Board streamline its process to shorten its timetable in these cases. We believe that use of emergency authority should be extraordinary, for example when there is an immediate and exceptional aviation safety risk. Nevertheless, nothing raised by the parties here has convinced us we have erred, as a legal matter, in our long-established precedent\9\ holding that we do not have jurisdiction to review the Administrator's use of his emergency power. Parties may seek review of those decisions in the courts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\See, e.g., Administrator v. Anderson, 5 NTSB 564, 565 (1985). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also agree, not only with emergency cases but with all cases on our docket, that affected individuals deserve timely and prompt decisionmaking. Toward that end, we have made clearing our case backlog a priority. 24. We proposed to add a new subparagraph (f) to Sec. 821.55 to leave no doubt that discovery was available in emergency proceedings. In response to EAA's and NAAP's concern that authority to sanction noncompliance with discovery be clear, we note that our proposal makes Sec. 821.19 applicable to emergency cases. As the FAA suggests, we have added references to ``immediately effective orders,'' and we have deleted references to Sec. 821.56 and Sec. 821.57, replacing them with a general reference to ``this subpart.'' Despite the FAA's concern that subparagraph (e) is confusing, we have not had that experience. We note that this rule is intended to preclude separate filings that would complicate or prevent compliance with the statutory deadline. The substance of objections (such as jurisdictional ones that would otherwise be raised in a motion to dismiss) is to be raised in the answer, or in otherwise permitted pleadings. On further review, we are amending subparagraph (b) on our own motion to require either that the appeal attach a copy of the Administrator's order or that it indicate whether it is an emergency. This will greatly assist us in efficiently processing emergency cases. 25. In response to the comments, we will modify Sec. 821.56(a), Notice of hearing, to clarify its applicability to immediately effective orders. We are not convinced that NAAP's change, to retain the current timetable that the hearing be set no later than 25 days after the Board's receipt of the complaint should be made, as our change to refer to the service date is intended to help avoid processing delays and to allow parties to calculate key dates. 26. In response to concerns raised by commentors regarding our proposal changing the time periods for filing appeal briefs and replies, we will amend the rule to allow 7 days for reply briefs, thus providing both sides equal time. We have also added, in response to the concern of the FAA that in a particular case there may be no overnight or facsimile service available, an amendment allowing use of other transmission services if approved by the Board. 27. EAA and Mark McDermott object to our proposal at Sec. 821.63, extending sanctions for ex parte communications to include sanctioning counsel. On the other hand, NAAP supports sanctioning counsel rather than the existing rule that would sanction the client. We will adopt the rule as proposed. Contrary to the concerns expressed, the Board is well able to distinguish between vigorous advocacy and unlawful attempts to influence the decisionmaker. Counsel must be aware of and respect the difference, and it may not be appropriate in a particular case that the penalty for breach of the ex parte rules be assessed against the client. 28. We proposed to amend Sec. 821.64 to require that petitions for stay pending judicial review be filed before the effective date of the order. AOPA is concerned that this change was proposed for the Board's convenience, and argues that there may be reasons for seeking a stay after the order is effective, such as late retention of counsel. Our proposal stemmed from our concern that we might be without authority to stay an order when a respondent is already in default or that, as a matter of policy, we should not stay an order under such circumstances (e.g., in default by not surrendering the certificate by the ordered date). We continue to believe that 30 days (the effective date of our order on appeal) is sufficient time to file a petition for stay. In response to AOPA's concern about time to hire counsel, we note that the petition may be pro se, and need not be extensive. Our precedent regarding the granting or denying of stays pending judicial review is clear. See Administrator v. Reinhold, NTSB Order EA-4224 (1994). In light of our experience under the FAA Civil Penalty Administrative Assessment Act of 1992, we will add a new sentence to subparagraph (a) of Sec. 821.64 explaining procedures applicable where the FAA appeals our order. 29. Finally, we will amend the authority references at the start of the rules and statutory references throughout the rules to reflect the new codification enacted in Pub.L. 103-272. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certify that the amended rules will not have a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities. The rules are not major rules for the purposes of Executive Order 12291. We also conclude that this action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources, nor will this action impose any information collection requirements requiring approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 821 Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Aviation safety. Accordingly, 49 CFR Part 821 is amended as set forth below. PART 821--RULES OF PRACTICE IN AIR SAFETY PROCEEDINGS 1. The authority citation for Part 821 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Title VI, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.); Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, Pub.L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2166 (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and FAA Civil Penalty Administrative Assessment Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-345 (49 U.S.C. 46301), unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 821.1 is amended by revising the definition of ``initial decision'' to read as follows: Sec. 821.1 Definitions. * * * * * Initial decision means the law judge's decision on the issue remaining for disposition at the close of a hearing before him and/or an order that has the effect of terminating the proceeding, such as one granting a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, as provided in Sec. 821.17, and one granting a motion for summary judgment. Initial decision does not include cases where the record is certified to the Board, with or without a recommended decision, orders partly granting a motion to dismiss and requiring an answer to any remaining allegations, or rulings by the law judge on interlocutory matters appealed to the Board under Sec. 821.16; * * * * * 3. A new Sec. 821.3 is added to subpart A to read as follows: Sec. 821.3 Description of docket numbering system. In addition to sequential numbering of cases as received, each case formally handled by the Board receives a letter prefix. These letter prefixes reflect the case type: ``SE'' for the safety enforcement (suspension/revocation) docket; ``SM'' (safety medical) for an enforcement case involving a medical application; ``SR'' for a case involving safety registration issues under 49 U.S.C. 44101 et seq.; ``CD'' for certificate denial (see 49 U.S.C. 44703); a new ``CP'' for cases in which the Administrator seeks a civil penalty; and ``EAJA'' for applications seeking Equal Access to Justice Act awards. 4. Section 821.6 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 821.6 Appearances and rights of witnesses. * * * * * (d) Any party to a proceeding who is represented by an attorney or party representative shall notify the Board of the name and address of that attorney or representative. In the event of a change in attorney or representative of record, a party shall notify the Board, in the manner provided in Sec. 821.7(a), and the other parties to the proceeding, prior to the attorney or representative participating in any way, including the filing of documents, in any proceeding. 5. Section 821.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: Sec. 821.7 Filing of documents with the Board. (a) Filing address, date and method of filing. Generally, documents are to be filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W., Washington, DC 20594-2000, and addressed to the assigned law judge, if any. Subsequent to the filing of a notice of appeal from a law judge's initial decision or order terminating the proceeding (written or oral), or a decision permitting an interlocutory appeal, all documents should be directed to the Office of General Counsel, also at the above address. Filing of any document shall be by personal delivery, by U.S. Postal Service first class mail, or by overnight mail delivery service. Except as provided in Sec. 821.57, facsimile filing is permitted as a convenience to the parties only. It does not substitute for filing requirements in this part, and any fax transmission to the Board must be followed, no later than the following busniess day, by a confirmation copy, clearly marked as such, sent by a method of service authorized in this paragraph. Unless otherwise shown to be inaccurate, documents shall be deemed filed on the date of personal delivery, on the send date shown on the facsimile (provided a confirmation copy is properly served), and, for mail delivery service, on the mailing date shown on the certificate of service, on the date shown on the postmark if there is no certificate of service, or on the mailing date shown by other evidence if there is no certificate of service and no postmark. (b) Number of copies. An executed original and 3 copies of each document shall be filed with the Board. Copies need not be signed, but the name of the person signing the original shall be shown. * * * * * 6. Section 821.8 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.8 Service of documents. (a) Who must be served. (1) Copies of all documents filed with the Board must be served on all parties to the proceeding by the person filing them. A certificate of service shall accompany all documents when they are tendered for filing and shall certify concurrent service on the Board and the parties. Certificates of service shall be in substantially the following form: I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) on the following parties' counsel or designated representatives [or on the party, if without counsel or representative] at the address indicated by [specify the method of service: first class mail, personal service, etc.] [indicate names and addresses here] Dated at ________________, this ______ day of ______, 19______. (Signature)______________ For (on behalf of)______________'' (2) Service shall be made on the person designated in accordance with Sec. 821.7(f) to receive service. If no such person has been designated, service shall be made on the party. (b) Method of service. Except as set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section and as required by Sec. 821.57(b), the method of service is the same as that set forth in Sec. 821.7(a) for filing of documents. The Board will serve orders, notices of hearing, and written initial decisions on attorneys or representatives designated under Sec. 821.7(f) or, if no attorney or representative, on the party itself, and will do so by certified mail, except that service on the Administrator will be by first-class mail. (c) Where service shall be made. Except for personal service, addresses for service of documents shall be those in the official record or, if none in the case of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC 20591. In the case of an agent designated by an air carrier under section 1005(b) of the Act, service of any sort may be accomplished only at the agent's office or usual place of residence. (d) Presumption of service. There shall be a presumption of lawful service: (1) When acknowledgement of receipt is by a person who customarily or in the ordinary course of business receives mail at the residence or principal place of business of the party or of the person designated under Sec. 821.7(f); or (2) When a properly addressed envelope, sent to the most current address in the official record by regular, registered, or certified mail, has been returned as undelivered, unclaimed, or refused. (e) Date of service. The date of service shall be determined in the same manner as the filing date is determined under Sec. 821.7(a). 7. Section 821.9 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.9 Intervention and amicus appearance. (a) Intervention. Any person may move for leave to intervene in a proceeding and may become a party thereto, if it is found that such person may be bound by any order to be entered in the proceeding, or that such person has a property, financial, or other legitimate interest that will not be adequately represented by existing parties, and that such intervention will not unduly broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. Except for good cause shown, no motion for leave to intervene will be entertained if filed less than 10 days prior to hearing. The extent to which an intervenor may participate in the proceedings is within the law judge's discretion, and depends on the above criteria. (b) Amicus curiae briefs. A brief of amicus curiae in matters on appeal from initial decisions may be filed if accompanied by written consent of all the parties, or if, in the opinion of the Board's General Counsel, the brief will not unduly broaden the matters at issue or unduly prejudice any party to the litigation. A brief may be conditionally filed with motion for leave. The motion shall identify the interest of the movant and shall state the reasons why a brief of amicus curiae is desirable. Such brief and motion shall be filed within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the brief would support, unless cause for late filing is shown, in which event the General Counsel may provide an opportunity for response as a condition of acceptance. 8. Section 821.11 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.11 Extension of time. (a) Upon written request filed with the Board and served on all parties, or by oral request with any extension granted confirmed in writing and served on all parties, and for good cause shown, the chief judge, the law judge, or the Board may grant an extension of time to file any document except a petition for reconsideration. (b) The Board's General Counsel is authorized to grant unopposed extensions on timely oral request without a showing of good cause in cases appealed to the Board from a decision of a law judge. Written confirmation of such a grant must promptly be sent by the requesting party to the Board and served on other parties. (c) Extensions of time to file petitions for reconsideration will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. 9. Section 821.12 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.12 Amendment and withdrawal of pleadings. (a) Amendment. At any time more than 15 days prior to the hearing, a party may amend his pleadings by filing the amended pleading with the Board and serving copies on the other parties. After that time, amendment shall be allowed only at the discretion of the law judge. In the case of amendment to an answerable pleading, the law judge shall allow the adverse party a reasonable time to object or answer. Amendments to complaints shall be consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44709(c) and 44710(c). (b) Withdrawal. Except in the case of withdrawal of an appeal to the Board, withdrawal of a petition for review, withdrawal of a complaint, or withdrawal of an appeal from an initial decision, a party may withdraw pleadings only on approval of a law judge or the Board. 9. Section 821.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.14 Motions. (a) General. An application to the Board or to a law judge for an order or ruling not otherwise provided for in this part shall be by motion. Prior to the assignment of a law judge, all motions shall be addressed to the chief law judge. Thereafter, and prior to the expiration of the period within which an appeal from the law judge's initial decision may be filed, or the certification of the record to the Board, all motions shall be addressed to the law judge. At all other times, motions shall be addressed to the Board, Office of General Counsel. All motions not specifically provided for in any other section of this part shall be made at an appropriate time, depending on the nature thereof and the relief requested. * * * * * 10. Section 821.19 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 821.19 Depositions and other discovery. * * * * * (b) Exchange of information by parties. At any time before hearing, at the instance of either party, the parties or their representatives may exchange information, such as witness lists, exhibit lists, curricula vitae and bibliographies of expert witnesses, and other data. In the event of a dispute, either the assigned law judge or another law judge delegated this responsibility (if a law judge has not yet been assigned) may issue an order directing compliance with any ruling made with respect to discovery. Any party may also use written interrogatories, requests to admit, or other discovery tools. Copies of discovery requests and responses shall be served on the law judge assigned to the proceeding. * * * * * (d) Failure to provide or preserve evidence. The failure of any party to comply with an order of an administrative law judge compelling discovery or to cooperate in a timely request for the preservation of evidence may result in a negative inference against that party with respect to the matter sought and not provided or preserved, a preclusion order, or dismissal. 11. Section 821.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: Sec. 821.20 Subpoenas, witness fees, and appearances of Board Members, officers, or employees. * * * * * (b) Witness fees. Witnesses shall be entitled to the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. The fees shall be paid by the party at whose instance the witness is subpoenaed or appears. The Board may decline to process a proceeding further should a party fail to compensate a witness pursuant to this paragraph. (c) Board Members, officers, or employees. In order to encourage a free flow of information to the Board's accident investigators, the Board disfavors the use of its personnel in enforcement proceedings. Therefore, the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section are not applicable to Board Members, officers, or employees, or the production of documents in their custody. Applications for the attendance of such persons or the production of such documents at hearing shall be addressed to the chief law judge or the assigned law judge, as the case may be, in writing, and shall set forth the need of the moving party for such testimony, and a showing that such testimony is not now, or was not otherwise, reasonably available from other sources. The law judge shall not permit such testimony or documentary evidence to include any opinion testimony, or any account of statements of a respondent, made during the Board's investigation of any accident. 12. Section 821.24 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) to read as follows: Sec. 821.24 Initiation of proceedings. (a) Petition for review. Where the Administrator has denied an application for the issuance or renewal of an airman certificate, the applicant may file with the Board a petition for review of the Administrator's action within 60 days from the time the Administrator's action was served on petitioner. The petition shall contain a short statement of the facts on which petitioner's case depends and a statement of the requested action, and may be in letter form. * * * * * (d) Stay of proceeding pending request for special issuance (restricted certificate). The Board lacks authority to review special issuances, or to direct that they be issued. Where a request for special issuance (restricted certificate) has been filed with the Administrator pursuant to the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Board will hold a petition for review in abeyance pending final action by the Administrator or for 180 days from the date of the Administrator's initial certificate denial, whichever occurs first. (e) New evidence. If petitioner has undergone medical testing or evaluation in addition to that already submitted or known to the Administrator, and wishes to introduce the results into the record, the new medical evidence must be served on the Administrator at least 30 days before the hearing. Absent good cause, failure timely to serve any new evidence will result in its exclusion from the record. The Administrator may amend his answer within 10 days from the date the new evidence is served to respond to such new evidence. 13. Section 821.30 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.30 Initiation of proceedings. (a) Appeal. A certificate holder may file with the Board an appeal from an order of the Administrator amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking a certificate. The appeal shall be filed with the Board within 20 days from the time of service of the order and be accompanied with proof of service on the Administrator. * * * * * 14. Section 821.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.31 Complaint procedure. (a) Filing, time of filing, and service on respondent. The order of the Administrator from which an appeal has been taken shall serve as the complaint. The complaint shall be filed by the Administrator with the Board within 10 days after the service date of the notice of appeal. * * * * * 15. Section 821.35 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.35 Assignment, duties, and powers. (a) Assignment of law judge and duration of assignment. The chief law judge shall assign a law judge to preside over the proceeding. Until such assignment, motions, requests, and documents shall be addressed to the Docket Section, Office of Administrative Law Judges, for handling by the chief law judge, who may handle these matters personally or who may delegate all or any of them to other law judges for decision. After assignment, all motions, requests, and documents shall be addressed to that law judge. The authority of the assigned law judge shall terminate upon certification of the record to the Board, or upon expiration of the period within which appeals from initial decisions may be filed, or upon the law judge's withdrawal from the proceeding. * * * * * 16. Section 821.37 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.37 Notice of hearing. (a) Notice. The chief law judge (or his law judge delegate) or the law judge to whom the case is assigned shall set a reasonable date, time and place for the hearing. The notice of the hearing shall be served at least 30 days in advance thereof, and shall include notice of the nature of the hearing. The law judge may set the hearing fewer than 30 days after the notice of hearing is served if the parties agree to an earlier hearing date. In setting the hearing date, due regard shall be given to any need for discovery. In setting the place of the hearing, due regard shall be given to the convenience of the parties and to conservation of Board funds. The location of the witnesses and the suitability of a site served by a scheduled air carrier are added factors to be considered in setting the hearing location, as is Board policy that foreign-held hearings are appropriate only in the most extraordinary circumstances. * * * * * 17. Section 821.38 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.38 Evidence. (a) Every party shall have the right to present a case-in-chief or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit evidence in rebuttal, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Hearsay evidence (including hearsay within hearsay where there are acceptable circumstantial indicia of trustworthiness) is admissible. (b) All material and relevant evidence should be admitted, but a law judge may exclude unduly repetitious evidence pursuant to Sec. 556(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Any evidence that is offered and excluded may be described (via an ``offer of proof''), and that description should be made a part of the record. 18. Section 821.42 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as (c). 19. Section 821.43 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.43 Effect of law judge's initial decision and filing of an appeal therefrom. If an appeal from the initial decision is not timely filed with the Board by a party, the initial decision shall become final but shall not be precedent binding on the Board. The filing of a timely appeal shall stay the initial decision. 20. Section 821.47 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.47 Notice of appeal. (a) A party may appeal from a law judge's order or from the initial decision by filing with the Board and serving on the other parties (pursuant to Sec. 821.8) a notice of appeal within 10 days after an oral initial decision has been rendered or a written decision or a final or appealable (see Sec. 821.16) order has been served. At any time before the date for filing an appeal from an initial decision or order has passed, the law judge or the Board may, for good cause shown, extend the time within which to file an appeal, and the law judge may also reopen the case for good cause on notice to the parties. (b) A law judge may not reconsider his initial decision once the time for appealing to the Board from the initial decision has expired or once an appeal with the Board has been filed. However, a timely request for reconsideration by the law judge of his decision, filed before an appeal to the Board has been taken, will stay the deadline for appealing to the Board until 10 days after the date the law judge serves his decision on the request. For the purpose of this section, a request for reconsideration submitted on the same date as a notice of appeal will be deemed to have been filed first. 21. Section 821.48 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows and by removing paragraph (f), and redesignating paragraph (g) as (f): Sec. 821.48 Briefs and oral argument. * * * * * (e) Other briefs. Subsequent to brief filing, parties may file citations to supplemental authorities. This procedure may be used only for identifying new, relevant decisions, not to correct omissions in briefing or to respond to a reply. No argument may be included in such filings. Parties shall submit, with any decision, a reference to the page of the brief to which the decision pertains. Any response shall be filed within 10 days and shall be similarly limited. * * * * * 22. Section 821.49 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.49 Issues on appeal. (a) On appeal, the Board will consider only the following issues: (1) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence? (2) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent, and policy? (3) Are the questions on appeal substantial? (4) Have any prejudicial errors occurred? (b) If the Board determines that the law judge erred in any respect or that his order in his initial decision should be changed, the Board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge's order or may remand the case for such purposes as the Board may deem necessary. The Board on its own initiative may raise any issue, the resolution of which it deems important to a proper disposition of the proceedings. If necessary or appropriate, a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded the parties to comment. 23. Section 821.50 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: Sec. 821.50 Petitions for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration, or modification of an order of the Board. (a) General. Any party to a proceeding may petition for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration, or modification of a Board order on appeal from an initial decision. Any such petitions shall be served on all other parties to the proceeding within 30 days after service of the Board's order on appeal from the initial decision. Initial decisions that have become final because they were not appealed may not be the subject of petitions under this section. (b) Timing and service. The petition shall be filed with the Board and served on the parties within 30 days after service of the Board's order on appeal from the initial decision. * * * * * 24. The heading of Subpart I is revised to read: Subpart I--Rules Applicable to Emergency Proceedings and Other Immediately Effective Orders 25. Section 821.54 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.54 General. (a) Applicability. This subpart shall apply to any order issued by the Administrator under section 609 of the Act: as an emergency order; as an order not designated as an emergency order, but later amended to be an emergency order; and any order designated as immediately effective or effective immediately. * * * * * 26. Section 821.55 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows: Sec. 821.55 Appeal, complaint, answer to the complaint, and motions. (a) Time within which to appeal. The certificate holder may appeal within 10 days after the service of the Administrator's emergency or other immediately effective order. The certificate holder shall serve a copy of his appeal on the Administrator. (b) Form and content of appeal. The appeal may be in letter form. It shall identify the Administrator's order and the certificate affected, shall recite the Administrator's action, and shall identify the issues of fact or law on which the appeal is based, and the relief sought. The appeal shall either attach a copy of the Administrator's order or shall clearly indicate that an emergency or other immediately effective order is being appealed. (c) Complaint. Within 3 days after receipt of the appeal, the Administrator shall file with the Board an original and 3 copies of his emergency or other immediately effective order as his complaint, and serve a copy on the respondent. * * * * * (f) Discovery. Discovery is authorized in emergency or other immediately effective proceedings and, given the short time available, parties are directed to cooperate to ensure timely completion prior to the hearing. Discovery requests shall be served as soon as possible after initiation of the proceeding. Motions to compel production shall be expeditiously filed, and will be promptly decided. Time limits for compliance with discovery requests shall accommodate and not conflict with the schedule set forth in this subpart. The provisions at Sec. 821.19 shall apply, modified as necessary to reflect applicable deadlines. 27. Section 821.56 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 821.56 Hearing and initial decision. (a) Notice of hearing. Immediately upon notification by the Administrator to the Board, and in no case later than 5 days after receiving notice from the Administrator that an emergency exists or that safety in air commerce or air transportation requires the immediate effectiveness of an order, the Board shall set, and notify the parties of, the date and place for hearing. The hearing shall be set for a date no later than 25 days after service of the complaint. To the extent not inconsistent with this section, the provisions of Sec. 821.37(a) also apply. * * * * * 28. Section 821.57 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: Sec. 821.57 Procedure on appeal. * * * * * (b) Briefs and oral argument. Unless otherwise authorized by the Board, all briefs in emergency cases shall be served via overnight delivery or facsimile confirmed by first class mail. Within 5 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief with the Board and serve a copy on the other parties. Within 7 days after service of the appeal brief, a reply brief may be filed, with copies served (as provided above) on other parties. The briefs shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 821.48 (b) through (g). Appeals may be dismissed by the Board on its own initiative or on motion of a party, notably in cases where a party fails to perfect the notice of appeal by filing a timely brief. When a request for oral argument is granted, the Board will give notice of such argument. (c) Issues on appeal. The provisions of Sec. 821.49 shall apply to issues on appeal. However, the Board may upon its own initiative raise any issue, the resolution of which it deems important to a proper disposition of the proceeding. If necessary or appropriate, the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment. * * * * * 29. Section 821.63 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 821.63 Requirements to show cause and imposition of sanction. * * * * * (b) The Board may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes it administers, consider a violation of this subpart sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed or knowingly caused a violation to occur. Alternatively, the Board may impose sanction, including suspension of the privilege of practice before the Board, on the party's attorney or representative, where an infraction has been committed by that attorney or representative and penalizing the party represented is not in the interest of justice. 30. Section 821.64 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 821.64 Judicial review. (a) General. Judicial review of a final order of the Board may be sought as provided in section 1006 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 46110) and section 304(d) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1153) by filing a petition for review with the appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days of the date of entry (service date) of the Board's order. Under the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, any party may appeal the Board's decision. The Board itself does not typically participate in the judicial review of its action. In matters appealed by the FAA, respondents should anticipate the need to make their own defense. (b) Stay pending judicial review. No petition for stay pending judicial review will be entertained if it is received by the Board after the effective date of the Board's order. If a stay action is to be timely, any petition must be filed sufficiently in advance of the effective date of the Board's order to allow for the possibility of a reply and to allow for Board review. Issued in Washington, DC on this 8th day of November, 1994. John K. Lauber, Member. Member VOGT Filed the Following Concurring Statement I continue to believe, for the reasons expressed in my concurrence in Administrator v. Heimerl & Forrest, NTSB Order EA- 4134 (April 12, 1994), that the Board's service rule at Sec. 821.8(e) should be amended to eliminate reliance on the date of the certificate of service when calculating the date of service. [FR Doc. 94-28074 Filed 11-14-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P