The Clean Air Act (the Act) required states that had not yet achieved national air quality standards to establish a permit program regulating new. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a case decided on June 25, , by the United States Supreme Court. The case is famous for. Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council cannot be understated, yet subsequent case law solidified Chevron’s reign over judicial review of.
|Country:||United Arab Emirates|
|Published (Last):||8 December 2009|
|PDF File Size:||2.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, [n14] and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations.
The focal point of this controversy is one phrase in that portion of the Amendments. Burger Associate Justices William J. The fact that the EPA has from time to time changed its interpretation of the term “source” does not lead to the conclusion that no deference should be accorded the EPA’s interpretation of the statute. Part D SIPs that include all requirements needed to assure reasonable further progress and attainment by the deadline under section and that are being carried out need not restrict the use of a plantwide bubble, the same hcevron under the PSD proposal.
Section a defined the terms that are to checron used in setting and chevton standards of performance for new stationary sources. In contrast, an agency to which Congress has delegated policymaking responsibilities may, within the limits of that delegation, properly rely upon the incumbent administration’s views of wise policy to inform its judgments.
The distinction the court drew may well be a sensible one, but our labored review of the problem has surely disclosed that it is not a distinction that Congress ever articulated itself, or one that the EPA found in the statute before the courts began to review the legislative work product.
Rebuilding Liberty Without Nrdx.
Clean Air Act Amendments of Pub. Similarly, the legislative history is consistent with the view that the EPA should have broad discretion in implementing the policies of the Amendments. NRDCU. Gorsuchadopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as chevronn total emissions from the plant itself did not increase.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The second “main purpose” of the provision — allowing the States “greater flexibility” than the EPA’s interpretative Ruling — as well as the reference to the EPA’s authority to amend its Ruling in accordance with the intent of the section, is entirely consistent with the view that Congress did not intend to freeze the definition of “source” contained in the existing regulation into a rigid statutory requirement.
The court remarked in this regard: Omenn, Cleaning the Air: The issue facing the Court was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency’s own reading of a statute that it is charged with administering. GorsuchF. This decision was rendered after enactment of the Amendments, and hence the standard was in effect when Congress enacted the Amendments. If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation [p] of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.
It interpreted the policies of the statute, however, to mandate the plantwide definition in programs designed to maintain clean air and to forbid it in programs designed to improve air quality. Chevroj number of commenters indicated the need for a more explicit definition of “source.
It refers to a decision, Chevron U. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
The Clean Air Amendments ofPub. Since the purpose of the permit [p] program its ” raison d’etre, ” in the court’s view — was to improve air quality, the court held that the bubble concept was inapplicable in these cases under its prior precedents. Respondents argue if an old plant containing several large emitting units is to be modernized by the replacement of one or more units emitting over tons of pollutant with a new unit emitting less — but still more than tons — the result should be no different simply because “it happens to be built not at a new site, but within a preexisting plant.
Views Read Edit View history. This gives meaning to all of the terms — a single building, not part of a larger operation, would be covered if it emits more than tons of pollution, as would any facility, structure, or installation. See 44 FR col.
We are not persuaded that parsing of general terms in the text of the statute will reveal an actual intent of Congress. Sunstein” Chevron Step Zero”, 92 Va.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – Ballotpedia
On the latter occasion, the EPA made a formal rulemaking proposal that would have permitted the use of the “bubble concept” for new installations within a plant as well as for modifications of existing units. The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding.
Respondents rely on the arguments rejected by the Court of Appeals in support of the judgment, and may rely on any ground that finds support in the record.
United States Supreme Court case. It is also easily expressed: In its explanation of why the use of the “bubble concept” was especially appropriate in preventing significant deterioration PSD in clean air areas, the EPA stated: Fix the law to make it unambiguous. A small portion of the statute — 91 Stat. However, this is only appropriate once a SIP is adopted that will assure the reductions in existing emissions necessary for attainment.
The portion of the Senate Committee Report dealing with nonattainment areas states generally that it was intended to “supersede the EPA administrative approach,” and that expansion should be permitted if a State could. The EPA’s plantwide definition is a permissible construction of the statutory term “stationary source. A federal judge thinks so”.