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: Daikazahn Gajas
Country: Namibia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 12 July 2016
Pages: 237
PDF File Size: 5.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.57 Mb
ISBN: 148-6-51839-793-4
Downloads: 35716
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tut

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – Ballotpedia

However, EPA believes that complete Part 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.

Supreme Court case City of Arlington, Tex.

FCCS. Congress bestowed on them the authority to adjudicate administrative matters in 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.

Section a defined the terms that are to be used in setting and enforcing standards of performance for new stationary sources. After noting that the Ruling was ambiguous on the question “whether a plant with a number of different processes and emission points would be considered a single source,” 44 Fed. It pointed out that the dual definition “can act as a disincentive to new investment and modernization by discouraging modifications to existing facilities” and.

The focal point of this controversy is one phrase in that portion of the Amendments. Moreover, the new definition would simplify EPA’s rules by using the same definition of “source” for PSD, nonattainment new source review, checron the construction moratorium. Legislative History In addition, respondents argue that the legislative history and ntdc of the Act foreclose the plantwide definition, and that the EPA’s interpretation is not entitled to deference, because it represents a sharp break with prior interpretations of the Act.

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

Respondents argue if an old plant containing several large emitting units is to be modernized by the replacement of one or hrdc 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.


We hold cgevron 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. 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.

The United States House of Representatives in the current Congress passed a bill on January 11,called the dhevron Accountability Act of “, which, if hcevron into law, cjevron change the doctrine of Chevron deference. In the ‘s and the ‘s, Congress enacted a series of statutes designed to encourage and to assist the States in curtailing air pollution.

That’s a problem for the judiciary. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. Later in that Ruling, the EPA added: Section of the bill, adopted during full committee markup establishes a new section of the Clean Air Act.

The Ruling gave primary emphasis to the nrdx attainment of the statute’s environmental goals. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [p] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

During the floor debates, Congressman Waxman remarked that the legislation struck a proper balance between environmental controls and economic growth in the dirty air areas of America.

Courts must, in some cases, reconcile competing political interests, but not on the basis of the judges’ nddc policy preferences. Indeed, the language itself cjevron a “bubble concept” of sorts: The State’s second option would be to revise its implementation plan in accordance with this new provision. The EPA regulations containing the plantwide definition chevton the term stationary source were promulgated on October [p] 14, Part D SIPs that include 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 of a plantwide bubble, the same as under the PSD proposal.

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

In its explanation of why the use of the “bubble concept” was especially appropriate in preventing significant deterioration PSD in cuevron air fhevron, the EPA stated: The Amendments contain no specific reference to the “bubble concept.

Basically, the statute required each State in a nonattainment area to prepare and obtain approval of a new SIP by July 1, In addition, application of the bubble on a plant-wide basis encourages voluntary upgrading of equipment, and growth in productive capacity.


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. Articles with short description. States will remain subject to the dhevron that for all nonattainment areas they demonstrate attainment of NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and show reasonable further progress toward such attainment.

In light of its conclusion that the legislative history bearing on the question was “at best contradictory,” it reasoned that “the purposes of the nonattainment program should guide our decision here.

During chevro floor debates, Congressman Waxman remarked that the legislation struck. EPAU. 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.

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

Accord, Capital Cities Cable, Inc. Clean Air Act Amendments of Pub. This page was last edited on 13 Decemberat They contend that the text of the Act requires the EPA to use a dual definition — if either chegron component of a plant, or the plant as a whole, emits over tons of pollutant, it is a major stationary source.

A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on cheveon own, that the agency is entitled to deference. The second “main purpose” of the provision — allowing the States “greater flexibility” than the EPA’s interpretative Ruling — as well as the reference to the EPA’s authority to amend its Ruling in accordance with the intent of the section, is entirely consistent chevroj the view that Congress did not intend to freeze the definition of “source” contained in the existing regulation into a rigid statutory requirement.

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.

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 xhevron public health.

If, however, the court determines Congress has cevron directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute.