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: Maktilar Mekree
Country: Uruguay
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 2 June 2006
Pages: 307
PDF File Size: 3.70 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.50 Mb
ISBN: 602-8-43535-863-5
Downloads: 97989
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tojabar

City of Arlington, Tex. 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.

A contrary agency interpretation must give way. EPA compounded the mistake in the rules here under review, in which it abandoned the dual definition. The legislative history of the portion of the Cbevron dealing fhevron 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 judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Rather, limits on the authority granted to a federal agency occur within the statutes enacted by Congress. In a unanimous decision, the Court applied Chevron deference and upheld as reasonable an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation, which allowed an employer to refuse chevvron hire an applicant when the applicant’s disability on the job would pose a “direct threat” to the applicant’s own health.

Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. Hearst Publications Skidmore v. 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.

United States, U. See nrcd FR col.

An ntdc agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. We note that the EPA in fact adopted the language of that definition in its regulations under the permit program. See, for example, the statement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, pointing out that denying a source owner flexibility in selecting options made it “simpler and cheaper to operate old, more polluting sources than to trade up.

It does, however, plainly disclose nrcd 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. United States administrative law.


The Clean Air Act Amendments of are a lengthy, detailed, technical, complex, and comprehensive response to a major social issue.

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

hcevron In order to avoid nonattainment area new source review, a major plant undergoing modification must show that it will not experience a significant net increase in emissions. EPAF. The EPA regulations containing the plantwide definition of the term stationary source were promulgated on October [p] 14, I should note that the test for determining whether a new or modified source is subject to the EPA interpretative regulation [the Offset Ruling] — and to the permit requirements of the revised implementation plans under the conference bill — is whether the source will emit a pollutant into an area which is exceeding a national ambient air quality standard for that pollutant — or precursor.

National Resources Defense Council, Inc.

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.

The 94th Congress, confronting these competing interests, was unable to agree on what response was in the public vhevron Respondents argue if an old plant containing several large emitting units is to be modernized by the replacement of one chevfon 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.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – Ballotpedia

New Source Performance Standards NSPS will continue to apply to many new or modified facilities and will assure use of the most up-to-date pollution control techniques regardless of the applicability of nonattainment area new source review. V 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.

For whatever the agency may be doing under Chevron, the problem remains that courts are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law and declare invalid agency actions inconsistent with those interpretations in the cases and controversies that come before them.

They contend that the text of the Act requires the EPA to use a dual definition — if either a component of a plant, or the plant as a whole, emits over tons of pollutant, it is a major stationary source. The EPA took particular note of the two then-recent Court of Appeals decisions, which had created the bright-line rule that the “bubble concept” should be employed in a program designed to maintain air quality, but not in one designed to enhance air quality. 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.

Most Related  ASTM B108 PDF

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. In many areas of the country, particularly the most industrialized States, the statutory goals were not attained.

Economists have proposed that economic incentives be substituted for the cumbersome administrative-legal framework. When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions.

For example, it stated: Chevron deference augments that characteristic of prerogative power by giving regulatory bureaucrats a pass available to no private citizen and to no other government officials — including the president and cabinet officers — who function outside the regulatory state.

Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law[5] but some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on the Supreme Chhevron jurisprudence and merely clarified the Court’s existing approach. However, this is only appropriate once a SIP is adopted that will assure the reductions in existing emissions necessary for attainment.

We regret, of course, that 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. 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.

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

Cutter Laboratories, U. Articles with short description. Perhaps that body consciously desired the Administrator to strike the balance at this level, thinking that those with great expertise and charged with responsibility for administering the provision would be in a better position to do so; perhaps it simply did not consider the question at this level; and perhaps Congress was unable to forge a coalition on either side of the question, and those on each side decided to take their chances with the scheme devised by the agency.

Start the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *