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: Doull Malagul
Country: Sierra Leone
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 3 July 2018
Pages: 207
PDF File Size: 3.52 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.69 Mb
ISBN: 125-9-97124-131-2
Downloads: 4419
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Visho

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

EPA [21] the court did not defer to the agency’s interpretation. United States administrative law. The section has two main purposes: Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v.

A contrary agency interpretation must give way. The issue facing the Court was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency’s own reading of a statute that it is charged with administering. However, EPA believes that complete Jrdc D SIPs, which contain adopted and enforceable requirements sufficient to assure attainment, may apply the approach proposed above for PSD, with plant-wide review but no review of individual pieces of equipment.

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

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.

In its explanation of why the use of the dhevron concept” was especially appropriate in preventing significant deterioration PSD in clean air areas, the EPA stated: The EPA’s interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, and is entitled to deference.

Thus, a new source is still subject to such requirements as “lowest achievable emission rate” even if it is constructed as a replacement for an older facility chevrno in a net reduction from previous emission levels. It then set forth several reasons for concluding that the plantwide definition was more appropriate.

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



During the floor debates, Congressman Waxman remarked that the legislation struck. 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, nedc a dual definition that could apply to both the entire “bubble” and its components.

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.

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. 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.

The case you are viewing is cited by the following Supreme Court decisions. In April, and again in September,the EPA published additional comments in which it indicated that revised SIP’s could adopt the plantwide definition of ndrc in nonattainment areas in certain circumstances. Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Nrvc.

What EPA may not do, however, is define all four terms to mean only plants. Indeed, the Administrative Procedure Actgoverning judicial review of most agency action, instructs reviewing courts to decide “all relevant questions of law. To the extent any congressional “intent” can be discerned from the statutory language, it would appear that the listing of overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than to confine, the scope of the EPA’s power to regulate particular sources in order to effectuate the policies of the Clean Air Act.

Rather, limits on the authority granted to a federal agency occur within the statutes enacted by Congress. The focal point of this controversy is one phrase in that portion of the Amendments. 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.


The Clean Air Act Amendments of impose certain requirements on States that have not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency EPA pursuant to earlier legislation, including the requirement that such “nonattainment” States establish a permit program regulating “new or modified major stationary sources” of air pollution.

Thus, according to respondents, the plantwide definition allows what the statute explicitly prohibits — the waiver of the LAER requirement for the newly constructed units. In these cases, the Administrator’s interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, and is entitled to deference: Respondents do not defend the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeals. For everyone except officials of the regulatory state, judges do not defer to anything except the text of the law in question and the body of case law accompanying it.

Section chebron provided: Views Read Edit View history. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Util. Generally, a permit may not be issued for a new vhevron modified major stationary source ntdc several stringent conditions are met.

Section e prohibited the operation of any new source in violation of a performance standard. February 29, Decided: Under a Part D plan, therefore, there is less need to subject a modification of an existing facility to LAER and other stringent requirements if the modification is accompanied by sufficient intrasource offsets so that there is no net increase in emissions.

Basically, the statute required each State in a nonattainment area to prepare and obtain approval of a new SIP by July nfdc, This gives meaning to all of the terms cjevron 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. It is also worth noting that federal courts are constitutionally of “limited jurisdiction”. Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.

Leave a Reply