The Earth Shook a Little

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

• - "any of these decisions can be overridden by legislation".  Congress cannot over-ride the decision of a Judge.  But they can draft a new bill that amends existing law that, if approved by both houses, eliminates the issue and renders the Judge's decision moot.  But think about the reality - we are talking about intent of parts of existing legislation that may be mired in technical details (especially with the FAA).  Your representative has to build support with other representatives to present it and get it passed.  This is the stuff that used to get deferred to the agencies.  This sort of thing is unlikely to get much priority in Congress.

Or, the agency will re-write the regulations so that they say what the agency meant to say, clearly.  

IMO, IANAL, this is a huge thing in a good way.  For too long, agencies have draft ambiguous regulations, then change what they mean via interpretation.  To change regulations, they have to publish the changes and go through public comment and weigh the sides.  With an interpretation, they just write it and it becomes the new regulation, until the publish an different interpretation, on a whim, and change how the apply the original regulation.

Now, they will have to actually amend the regulations, through the proper process. 

WOW, what a concept.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

FWIW,

my house is directly under the ARLIN FOUR arrival. I can sit in my back yard and watch the train of jets coming from the west. They cross over me at 10,000 ft MSL (9000 AGL) I cannot hear them. I guess the people in Scottsdale have better hearing than me.

As far as particulates from the jets, I don’t know how you can tell the jet particulates from the natural desert dust that blows through all the time. I guess some people are more sensitive to carbon than silica.

BTW

About 20 years ago I was flying back home from Cali at night IFR. I had been using the turbo, so I was in the high teens. ABQ center cleared me for the ARLEN arrival, so I flew it. A few minutes later they handed me off to PHX approach. They called me in a panic and asked me what I was doing there. I told them center had assigned it. They screamed “TURN 190 and descend to 6000 Immediately” I was wondering how long it would take them to figure out I was about to get rear need by a bunch of Boeings. I did have the closest jet in sight. It still had a couple of miles to go.

[Schllc]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

  I would much rather the courts interpret legislation rather than appointed bureaucrats interpreting the limits of the statutes they are charged with enforcing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This x 1,000,000

[Justin Schmidt]

Chevron caused the entire Trent problem and for it to rise to where it is.

If the founders knew what would happen to the bureaucratic side, there would have been an additional section of The Constitution to stamp out. In the last 100 years most of congressional authority has been given to the executive and in turn to the alphabet agencies and their state clones.

I for one see only good things coming from it and getting back to the intent of The Constitution 

[Fly Boomer]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I can't think about what would land in the courts except some of the airspace and flight path issues. 

Someone is going to object to anything and everything that the FAA (or any other federal regulator) decides, and then it goes to court.  These federal agencies have hundred of thousands of employees -- maybe they need to all be transferred to congress.

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Someone is going to object to anything and everything that the FAA (or any other federal regulator) decides, and then it goes to court.  These federal agencies have hundred of thousands of employees -- maybe they need to all be transferred to congress.

How did the US get by before 1984?

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

How did the US get by before 1984?

Before 1984 it was just tacit agreement by all parties.  Chevron didn't like the way things had been done for decades, and tried to change it.  The high court just wrote an opinion solidifying what we had been doing for a long time.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

Before 1984 it was just tacit agreement by all parties.  Chevron didn't like the way things had been done for decades, and tried to change it.  The high court just wrote an opinion solidifying what we had been doing for a long time.

So, we are back to that.

[T. Peterson]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:19 AM, 1980Mooney said:

Of course this will put the judiciary in the business of legislation because they will now be interpreting the intent of legislation whenever there is a dispute of intent.  The whole purpose of the Chevron Doctrine (or Deference) was to keep the judiciary out of that role. In simple terms the Court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes.  That has now changed.  The Court now requires lower federal courts to uphold an agency's statutory interpretation only if the court is persuaded that it is the best interpretation of the law.  That opens the door to anyone wanting to challenge any agency statutory interpretation. The judiciary now has to listen to any dispute or challenge and rule upon by rendering their interpretation of the intent of legislation.  The judiciary becomes what I call the "King makers".  They can bless the agency interpretation or they can strike it down.   If they strike it down, they will render an opinion why.  That will form the basis for the next agency statutory interpretation.  This becomes an inefficient two step" trial and error" approach to form statutory interpretation.  Of course there will be a lot of judge shopping along the way. 

Now take the whole noise issue.  The Journal of Air Law and Commerce states

• The Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) is significant because it shifts authority for noise abatement away from local governments and airport proprietors and grants the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authority on all noise restrictions on aircraft.  Airport operators, airlines, and citizens groups all hope this shift toward a national solution will lead to less litigation.
• .Some will say that there is no ambiguity in ANCA.  I say BS - it mainly specifically refers to Stage 3 aircraft.  The FAA has made many statutory interpretations of ANCA which I believe will now be open to challenge by cities or others 

Not a lawyer but spent a lot of my career finding ambiguity in oilfield service contracts.and merger agreements, Two people can read and interpret even the most carefully written contract differently.  Look at Exxon and Hess.  They are currently arguing in arbitration over the intent of "right of first refusal" on a Guyana project.  If Exxon prevails it will tank Hess's $53 bil. sale to Chevron.  Both sides of businessmen and lawyers think that their interpretation of the contract intent is unambiguously correct.  

Legislation is just another form of a legal contract in my opinion.  Admittedly some are very poorly written.  I tend to agree that this will clog the judiciary as they play a bigger role in legislative interpretation of intent.

“In simple terms the Court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes.”  In simple terms, it sounds to me that the Court in 1984 decided to put the fox in charge of the hen house, abrogating their responsibility. Of course this involves them in legislation. They interpret so as not to leave the citizen hostage to one branch of government, especially one bureaucracy buried somewhere in the bowels of government. Freedom is messy and disputes may be many. They don’t have much of that in autocratic nations. There are no disputes, only the will of a dictator. Unfortunately there is often not much food either.

[Dick Denenny]

Interestng read:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3889&context=ndlr