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.
|Published (Last):||10 December 2004|
|PDF File Size:||11.8 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Thus, a new source is cchevron subject to such requirements as “lowest achievable emission rate” even if it is constructed as a replacement for an older facility resulting in a net reduction from previous emission levels.
The fact that the EPA has from time to time chevton 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. Morton, ante at ; Schweiker v. If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law, and must be given effect.
See, for example, the statement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, pointing out that denying chevrln source owner flexibility in selecting options made it “simpler and cheaper chdvron operate old, more polluting sources than to trade up.
They contend that the text of the Act requires the EPA to use a dual definition nrxc if either a component of a plant, or the plant as a whole, emits over tons of pollutant, it is a major stationary source. It did agree with respondents contention that the regulations were inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, but did not adopt the construction of the statute advanced by respondents here.
That’s a problem for the judiciary. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [p] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
The Senate Report notes the value of case-by-case review of each new or modified major source of pollution that seeks to locate in a region exceeding an ambient standard, explaining that such a review requires matching reductions from existing sources against [p] emissions expected from the new source in order to assure that introduction of the new source chevrron not prevent attainment nrxc the applicable standard by the statutory deadline.
City of Arlington, Tex. If this choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute, we should not disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned. In these cases, the Administrator’s interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, and is entitled to deference: 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 chevrob.
That court viewed the statutory definition of the term “source” as sufficiently flexible to cover either a plantwide definition, a narrower definition covering each unit within a plant, or a dual definition that could apply to both the entire “bubble” and its components.
If the level of emissions allowed in the SIP is low enough to assure reasonable further progress and attainment, new construction or modifications with enough offset credit to prevent an emission increase should not jeopardize 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 plantwide definition is fully consistent with the policy of allowing reasonable economic growth, and the EPA has advanced a reasonable explanation for its conclusion that the regulations serve environmental objectives as well.
A the most stringent emission limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any State for such class or category of source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that such limitations are not achievable, or.
A number of commenters indicated the need for a more explicit definition of “source. We have chevrpn that neither need be compromised. Where overall emissions increase significantly, review will continue to be required.
Finally, the agency explained that additional requirements that remained in place would accomplish the fundamental purposes of achieving attainment with NAAQS’s hcevron expeditiously as possible. We conclude that rndc was the Court of Appeals, rather than Congress or nfdc of the decisionmakers who are authorized by Congress to administer this legislation, that was primarily responsible for the position taken by the agency.
We are not persuaded that parsing of general terms in the text of the statute will reveal an actual intent of Congress. In those areas that did not have a revised SIP in effect by July,brdc EPA rejected the plantwide definition; on the other hand, it expressly concluded that the plantwide approach would be permissible in certain circumstances if authorized by an approved SIP.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – Ballotpedia
EPA compounded the mistake in the rules here under review, in which it abandoned the dual definition. In one of its programs, the EPA used a plantwide definition of the term “stationary source.
While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices — resolving the competing interests which Congress itself either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally rndc to be resolved by the [p] agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday realities.
It is, however, consistent with the view that the EPA should have broad discretion in implementing the policies of the Amendments. WaltonU. The legislative history of the portion of the Amendments dealing with nonattainment areas does not contain any specific comment on the “bubble concept” or the question whether a plantwide definition of a stationary source is permissible under the permit program.
The EPA’s interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly chebron interests, and is entitled to deference.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The Administrator is authorized, moreover, to modify or amend that ruling in accordance with the intent and purposes of this section. Crisp, ante at ; United States v.
The general remarks pointed to by respondents “were obviously not made with this narrow issue in mind, and they cannot be said to demonstrate a Congressional desire. 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.
The 94th Congress, confronting these competing interests, was unable to agree on what response was in the public interest: Respondents do not defend the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeals. In a unanimous decision, the Court applied Chevron deference and upheld as chevrob an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation, which allowed an employer to refuse to hire an applicant when the applicant’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to the applicant’s own dhevron.
In explaining its conclusion, the EPA first noted that the definitional issue was not squarely addressed in either the statute or its legislative history, and therefore that the issue involved an agency “judgment as how to best carry out the Act. We disagree with petitioners on this point.
While the ruling allows for some growth in areas violating a NAAQS if the net effect is to insure further progress toward NAAQS achievement, the Act does not allow economic growth to be accommodated at the expense of the public health. Senator Muskie made the following remarks: The Clean Air Amendments ofPub. In light of its conclusion that the legislative history bearing on the question was “at best contradictory,” it reasoned that “the purposes of the nonattainment program should guide our decision here.
Respondents argued below chevrron EPA’s plantwide definition of “stationary source” is contrary to the terms, legislative history, and purposes of the amended Clear Air Act. 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 cbevron be no different simply because “it happens to be built not at a new site, but within a preexisting plant.
Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. By giving a plant manager flexibility to find the places and processes within a plant that control emissions most cheaply, pollution control can be achieved more quickly and cheaply. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.