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):||18 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||2.20 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Policy The arguments over policy that are advanced in the parties’ briefs create the impression that respondents are now waging in a judicial forum a specific policy battle which they ultimately lost in the agency and in the 32 jurisdictions opting for the “bubble concept,” but one which was never waged in the Congress. 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.
Cornell Law School Search Cornell. In such a case, federal judges — who have no constituency — have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. Section b 642 U.
BurwellU. This gives meaning to all of the terms cheevron 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.
The latter section, however, equates a source with a facility, whereas the former defines nrsc as a facility, among other items. Indeed, the language itself implies a “bubble concept” of sorts: Comprehensive bills did pass both Chambers of Congress; the Conference Report was rejected in the Senate.
Significantly, it was not the agency inbut rather the Court of Appeals that read the statute inflexibly to command a plantwide definition for programs designed to maintain clean air and to forbid such a definition for programs designed to improve air quality. The EPA regulations containing the plantwide definition of the term stationary source were promulgated on October [p] 14, LynchF. Respondents’ argument based on the legislative history relies heavily on Senator Muskie’s observation that a new source is subject to the LAER requirement.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. – Wikipedia
The language may reasonably be interpreted to impose the requirement on any discrete, but integrated, operation which pollutes. The Regulations which the Administrator has adopted provide what the agency could allowably view as. This is a fair and balanced approach, which will not undermine our economic vitality, or impede achievement of our ultimate environmental objectives.
Finally, the agency explained that additional requirements that remained in place would accomplish the fundamental purposes of achieving attainment with NAAQS’s as expeditiously as possible.
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. At the state level, Arizona has statutorily overturned Chevron deference with respect to most of its own agencies. On the contrary, the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations [p] and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Supreme Court of the United States.
Madison1 Cranch, 2 L. B the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more stringent. That’s a problem for the judiciary. In no event shall the application of this term permit a proposed new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under applicable new source standards of performance.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The bill explicitly exempts health care appeals and actions of agencies created by the state’s Corporation Commission. Our review of the EPA’s varying interpretations of chevfon 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.
In its explanation of why the chevrn of the “bubble concept” was especially appropriate in preventing significant deterioration PSD in clean air areas, the EPA stated: We note that the EPA in fact adopted the language of that definition nrdf its regulations under the permit program.
The EPA expressed the opinion that this interpretation was “more consistent with congressional intent” than the plantwide definition because it “would bring in more sources or modifications for review,” 45 Fed.
The above exemption is permitted under the SIP because, to be approved under Part D, plan revisions due by January,must contain adopted measures assuring that reasonable further progress will be made. Respondents rely on the arguments rejected chveron the Court of Appeals in support of the judgment, and may rely on any ground that finds support in the record.
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.
This description of a case-by-case approach to plant additions, which emphasizes the net consequences of the construction or modification of a new source as well as its impact on the overall achievement of the national standards, was not, however, addressed to the precise issue raised by these cases.
Primary standards were defined as those whose attainment and maintenance were necessary to protect the public health, and secondary standards were intended to specify a level of air quality that would protect the public welfare. During the floor debates, Congressman Waxman remarked that the legislation struck. Based on the examination of the legislation and its history which follows, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Congress did not have a specific intention on the applicability of the bubble concept in these cases, and conclude that the EPA’s use of that concept here is a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make.
Alabama Power held that EPA had broad discretion to define the constituent terms of “source” so as best to effectuate the purposes of the statute. 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.
Jong Ha Wang, U. Although a State may submit a revised SIP that provides for the waiver of another requirement — the “offset condition” — the SIP may not provide for a waiver of the LAER condition for any proposed source. The basic legal error of the Court of Appeals was to adopt a static judicial definition of the term “stationary source” when it had decided that Congress itself had not commanded that definition. 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.
Moreover, it is certainly no affront to common English usage to take a reference to a major facility or a major source to connote an entire plant, as opposed to its constituent parts.
Thus, according to respondents, the plantwide definition allows what the statute explicitly prohibits cevron the waiver of the LAER requirement for the newly constructed units. 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.
The court remarked in this regard: The Ruling stated that it was intended to [p] address. Later in that Ruling, the EPA added: A federal judge thinks so”. In the same Ruling, the EPA added: