Opinion ID: 450361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FAA's Authority to Grant Exemptions

Text: 25 The FAA has the power to grant exemptions from its regulations if such action would be in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1421(c) (1982). Petitioners contend that the Federal Aviation Act compels the FAA to adopt a more lenient exemption policy. Intervenors argue that legislation enacted after the noise rules were promulgated limits the FAA's authority to grant exemptions to the most exceptional circumstances. We find both of these arguments without merit. 26 Petitioners contend that the FAA's noise policy, as reflected in its regulations and exemption criteria, must be relaxed to conform to presently available technology. This argument rests on language in section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, which states that in prescribing and amending noise regulations, the FAA shall consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft ... to which it will apply. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1431(d)(4) (1984). See Brief for Carefree at 16-8; Brief for Tradewinds at 16 n. 6; Brief for Airmark at 12. Petitioners contend that continued adherence to the January 1, 1985 deadline is technologically impracticable because hush kits are not yet commercially available and economically unreasonable because it results in the grounding of their noncompliant aircraft. 27 We find nothing in section 611 that compels the FAA to adjust the deadline due to the current unavailability of hush kits. The FAA has already determined the economic reasonableness and technological practicability of its noise regulations. There is no serious contention that this original determination was flawed. By setting the deadline eight years in advance, the FAA in 1976 sought to force the industry to develop commercially available hush kits. 12 The FAA reasonably concluded that the absence of a deadline perceived by the industry as firm would perpetuate the sluggish development of the hush kit industry. Indeed the demand created by the deadline has spurred the industry, albeit belatedly, into developing hush kits which should be available within the next year. To require the FAA to reevaluate its deadline would erode the foundation of its regulations. Industry would not develop the needed technology if it could anticipate either periodic adjustments of deadlines to reflect the anticipated availability of noise reduction technology or individual exemptions based solely upon a particular carrier's inability to comply with the regulations without suffering what it perceives as unreasonable economic harm. 13 28 For their part, intervenors contend that two pieces of legislation enacted after the FAA promulgated the initial noise rules prove that Congress did not intend the FAA to exempt four-engine aircraft absent extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances not presented in the cases under review. 14 First, the version of ASNA passed by the Senate included a provision that would have permitted the FAA to grant exemptions for good cause. 15 The Conference Committee's exclusion of this language, intervenors contend, reflects a congressional intent to preclude the FAA from granting any exemptions. We reject this contention. Had the conferees intended by that deletion to effect a repeal of the FAA's existing authority, they would have expressed that intention in the clearest of terms. See Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 267, 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678, 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981) (repeal by implication is disfavored). Instead, the legislative history suggests that the conferees considered the good cause language unnecessary because the FAA already had authority to grant exemptions. 16 Furthermore, the conferees in the Committee Report explicitly urged the FAA to grant exemptions in hardship situations. 17 29 Second, intervenors contend that 1984 legislation granting specific exemptions for Miami and Bangor International Airports 18 proves the lack of FAA general exemption power. Again, the legislative history of the Miami-Bangor legislation reveals that by enacting these specific exemptions, Congress intended to leave the FAA's general exemption authority intact. 19 30 We therefore conclude that 1) section 611 does not compel the FAA to grant exemptions from the noise regulations merely because hush kits are currently commercially unavailable, and 2) neither ASNA nor the Miami-Bangor legislation either expressly or implicitly circumscribes the FAA's authority to grant exemptions under the section 601(c) public interest standard. In short, the FAA has broad discretion to determine whether the public interest would or would not be served by granting noncompliant carriers exemptions from the noise regulations. 31