...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>AOPA Pilot >FAA versus NTSB
【24h】

FAA versus NTSB

机译：

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

IN THE CONTEXT of administrative adjudication (when an agency acts like a court), the relationship between the FAA and NTSB is uncommon. While the FAA is responsible for promulgating rules (e.g., the federal aviation regulations) and enforcing them, the NTSB acts as a neutral arbiter to provide pilots and other airmen with an ostensibly unbiased review of the FAA's enforcement decisions. In the legal world, we call this type of arrangement a split enforcement scheme-and we should be thankful it exists. Most agencies operate under the unitary model whereby rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicative powers are all the responsibility of a single agency. While our split enforcement scheme allows the NTSB to review FAA enforcement decisions against airmen, the NTSB must accord a certain amount of deference to FAA interpretations of the FARs. For many years, the NTSB was required by statute to strictly defer to all validly adopted interpretations of laws and regulations and all written policy guidance relating to the sanctions to be imposed unless determined by the NTSB to be arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. As you can imagine, it was rare for the NTSB to overrule an FAA interpretation because of this high standard-particularly regarding a sanction determination. Fortunately, the Pilot's Bill of Rights, passed in 2012, struck this standard of strict deference from the statute and a new age dawned-or so we thought.

著录项

  • 来源
    《AOPA Pilot》 |2022年第9期|28-28|共1页
  • 作者

    IAN ARENDT;

  • 作者单位

    AOPA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 英语
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号