1. Does a decision that upholds an agency statutory interpretation merely because it is "perfectly sensible" or "reasonable and consistent with the statutory framework" comport with Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024)?

2. Is an agency free to disregard reliance interests engendered by its prior interpretation of the statute it administers simply because that interpretation was announced in a non-binding document like a notice of proposed rulemaking?

Does a decision upholding an agency's statutory interpretation merely because it is 'perfectly sensible' comport with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and can an agency disregard prior reliance interests by reinterpreting a statute?