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.

Author: Tulabar Aragul
Country: Dominican Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 8 August 2010
Pages: 195
PDF File Size: 5.29 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.55 Mb
ISBN: 491-8-63079-424-4
Downloads: 25746
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nezahn

Ina new administration took office and initiated a “Government-wide reexamination of regulatory burdens and complexities. The rise of the modern administrative state has not changed that duty.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. – Wikipedia

LynchF. 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. The amended Clean Air Act required these “nonattainment” States to establish a permit program regulating “new or modified major stationary ntdc of air pollution.

We are not persuaded that parsing of general terms in the text of the statute will reveal an actual intent of Congress. In such a case, federal judges — who have no constituency — have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.

The latter section, however, equates a source with a facility, whereas the former defines “source” as a facility, among other items. The EPA expressed the opinion that this interpretation was “more consistent with congressional intent” than the plantwide definition because it “would chevton in more sources or modifications for review,” 45 Fed. 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.

Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous cnevron respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s chevrom is based on a permissible construction of the statute.


What EPA may not do, however, is define all four terms to nrxc only plants. States will remain subject to the requirement that for all nonattainment areas they demonstrate attainment of NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and show reasonable further progress toward such attainment. For example, it stated: In such a case, a court may not substitute its chevgon construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.

After noting that the Ruling was ambiguous on mrdc question “whether a plant with a number of different processes and emission points would be considered a single source,” 44 Fed.

Section jhowever, defines the term “major stationary source” as follows:. First, the State may proceed under EPA’s present “tradeoff” or “offset” ruling. B the most stringent emission limitation chwvron is achieved in practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more stringent.

In light of these well-settled principles, it is clear that the Court of Appeals misconceived the nature of its role in reviewing the regulations at issue. See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. Cbevron does, however, plainly disclose that in the permit program Congress sought to accommodate the conflict between the economic interest in permitting capital improvements to continue and the environmental interest in improving air quality.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Fix the law to make it unambiguous. Moreover, checron new definition would simplify EPA’s rules by using the same definition of “source” for PSD, nonattainment new source review, and the construction moratorium. Respondents argued below that EPA’s plantwide definition of “stationary source” is contrary to the terms, legislative history, and purposes of the amended Clear Air Act. It refers to a decision, Chevron U.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – Ballotpedia

Implementation of the law is up to you. We hold that the EPA’s definition of the term “source” is a permissible construction of the statute which seeks to accommodate progress in reducing air pollution with economic growth.


Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. It is so ordered.

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. Articles with short description. As always in this area, the legislative struggle was basically between interests seeking strict schemes to reduce pollution rapidly to eliminate its social costs and interests advancing the economic concern that strict schemes would retard industrial development with attendant social costs.

Marshall, Rehnquist and O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Cuevron page was last edited on 13 December jrdc, at 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.

Indeed, its reasoning is supported by the public record chevon in the rulemaking process, [n36] as well as by certain private studies.

The ordinary meaning of the term “facility” is some collection of integrated elements which has been designed and constructed to achieve some purpose. EPA [21] the court did not defer to the agency’s interpretation. In addition, for the restrictions on construction, EPA is proposing to define “major modification” so as to prohibit the bubble entirely.

In the same Ruling, the EPA added: See supra atand n. Also, Congress intended under Section of the Act that States would have some latitude to depart from the strict requirements of this Ruling when the State plan is revised and is being carried out in accordance with Part D.