Looking for FAR web site based on legal rulings

[A Squared]

Mark,

Thanks for the explanation. A couple of questions:

==============================
the Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have no claim to deference of any sort. For one reason, they are too informal. Congress does not generally expect agencies to make law through general counsel opinion letters.
==============================

I don't see that quote in the docket I've read. I'm looking at what I believe to be the desicion on the Michigan Bar assn's website

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/district/2002/042502/14898.html

Is this the one you're referencing, or is there another docket?

An interpretation made in an enforcement action is a final action - the FAA has had to state a solid position at an adjudicatory hearing to have that position enforced.

So you are saying that a lettter of interpretation issued by the CHief COunsel is not a "validly adopted interpretation" But if that same interpretation is advanced in an enforcement action than it does become a "validly adopted interpretation"

 

[midlifeflyer]

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/district/2002/042502/14898.html

That was the District Court decision. It went up to the 6th Circuit on appeal:

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04a0044p.06

So you are saying that a lettter of interpretation issued by the CHief COunsel is not a "validly adopted interpretation" But if that same interpretation is advanced in an enforcement action than it does become a "validly adopted interpretation"

That's one way of putting it, though it's a little more technical than that. I've been loose on the technicalities in an effort to keep as much jargon as I can out of it (try teaching antitrust law to management majors ). Actually, the "deference" rule doesn't really give the interpretation binding status. All the deference rule does is tell the NTSB it has to follow the FAA's lead when making it's ruling (with some exceptions). In it's broadest sense, the deference rule comes down to (my definition, not a court's):

An agency is presumed to be an expert on it's own regulations. When a court is asked to interpret an agency regulation, the agency's own interpretations are entitled to great weight and should be followed unless the interpretation is unreasonable.

Ultimately, it's the NTSB order using the intrepretation and the results on any appeal from that order that finally give the interpretation the force of law.