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):||1 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||9.38 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
United States Supreme Court case. Subsequently, in Waterkeeper Alliance v. In addition, for the restrictions on construction, EPA is proposing to define “major modification” so as to prohibit the bubble entirely.
Furthermore, in most circumstances, the measures adopted by January,must be sufficient to actually provide for attainment of the standards by the dates required under the Act, and in all circumstances measures adopted by must provide for attainment. LynchF. The Clean Air Amendments ofPub. Policy arguments concerning the “bubble concept” should be addressed to legislators or administrators, not to judges. A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference.
Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to them by Congress 1 where the intent of Congress was ambiguous and 2 where the interpretation was reasonable or chegron. We regret, of course, cheveon Congress did not advert specifically to the bubble concept’s application to various Clean Air Act programs, and note that a further clarifying statutory directive would facilitate the work of the agency and of the court in their endeavors to serve the legislators’ will.
FCCS. 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 chevrin the permit program.
Congress bestowed on them the authority to adjudicate administrative matters in Denver Bi-Metallic Investment Co.
Retrieved 12 October III In the ‘s and the ‘s, Congress enacted a series of statutes designed to encourage and to assist the States in curtailing air pollution.
Based on our examination of the legislative history, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is unilluminating. The fact that the agency has from time to time changed checron interpretation of the term “source” does not, as respondents argue, lead us to conclude that no deference should be accorded the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
GorsuchF. The EPA took particular note of the two then-recent Court of Appeals decisions, which had created the bright-line rule that the “bubble chevroj should be employed in a program designed to maintain air quality, but not in one designed to enhance chevro quality.
After noting that the Ruling was ambiguous on nrdd question “whether a plant with a number of different processes and emission points would be considered a single source,” 44 Fed. See supra atand n. Part D SIPs that brdc 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 ngdc a plantwide bubble, the same as under the PSD proposal.
Our review of the EPA’s varying interpretations of the word “source” — both before and after the Amendments — convinces us that the agency primarily responsible for administering this important legislation has consistently interpreted it flexibly — not in a sterile textual vacuum, but in the context of implementing policy decisions in a technical and complex arena. WaltonU. 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.
Gorsuchadopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the total emissions from the plant itself did not increase. In many areas of the country, particularly the most industrialized States, the statutory goals were not attained. In August,however, the EPA adopted a regulation that, in essence, applied the basic reasoning of the Court of Appeals in these cases.
Burger Associate Justices William J.
Mine Workers, U. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. To the extent any congressional “intent” can be discerned from this language, it would appear that the listing of overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than to confine, the scope of the agency’s power to regulate particular sources in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. More importantly, that history plainly identifies the policy concerns that motivated the enactment; the plantwide definition is fully consistent with one of those concerns — the allowance of reasonable economic growth — and, whether or not we believe it most effectively implements the other, we must recognize that the EPA has advanced a reasonable explanation for its conclusion that the regulations serve the environmental objectives as well.
Eldridge Vermont Yankee v.