Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/c111221/chevron-usa-inc-v-natural-resources-defense-council-inc/
Timestamp: 2019-12-10 16:42:31
Document Index: 573832638

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7607', '§ 110', '§ 111', '§ 7501', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 302', '§ 173', '§ 7502', '§ 172', '§ 7502', '§ 173', '§ 7503']

Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
The EPA regulations containing the plantwide definition of the term stationary source were promulgated on October *841 14, 1981. 46 Fed. Reg. 50766. Respondents[3] filed a timely petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 7607(b)(1).[4] The Court of Appeals set aside the regulations. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Gorsuch, 222 U. S. App. D. C. 268, 685 F.2d 718 (1982).
The court observed that the relevant part of the amended Clean Air Act "does not explicitly define what Congress envisioned as a `stationary source, to which the permit program. . . should apply," and further stated that the precise issue was not "squarely addressed in the legislative history." Id., at 273, 685 F. 2d, at 723. 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." Id., at 276, n. 39, 685 F. 2d, at 726, n. 39.[5] Based on two of its precedents concerning the applicability of the bubble concept to certain Clean Air Act programs,[6] the court stated that the bubble concept was "mandatory" in programs designed merely to maintain existing air quality, but held that it was "inappropriate" in programs enacted to improve air quality. Id., at 276, 685 F. 2d, at 726. Since the purpose of the permit *842 program  its "raison d'etre," in the court's view  was to improve air quality, the court held that the bubble concept was inapplicable in these cases under its prior precedents. Ibid. It therefore set aside the regulations embodying the bubble concept as contrary to law. We granted certiorari to review that judgment, 461 U.S. 956 (1983), and we now reverse.
"The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress." Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974). If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation *844 of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.[12] Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.[13]
"has been consistently followed by this Court whenever decision as to the meaning or reach of a statute has involved reconciling conflicting policies, and a full understanding of the force of the statutory policy in the given situation has depended upon more than ordinary knowledge respecting the matters subjected to agency regulations. See, e. g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111; Republic Aviation Corp. v. *845 Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793; Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194; Labor Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344.
". . . 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." United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382, 383 (1961).
In the 1950's and the 1960's Congress enacted a series of statutes designed to encourage and to assist the States in curtailing air pollution. See generally Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 63-64 (1975). The Clean Air Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1976, "sharply increased federal authority and responsibility *846 in the continuing effort to combat air pollution," 421 U. S., at 64, but continued to assign "primary responsibility for assuring air quality" to the several States, 84 Stat. 1678. Section 109 of the 1970 Amendments directed the EPA to promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's)[15] and § 110 directed the States to develop plans (SIP's) to implement the standards within specified deadlines. In addition, § 111 provided that major new sources of pollution would be required to conform to technology-based performance standards; the EPA was directed to publish a list of categories of sources of pollution and to establish new source performance standards (NSPS) for each. Section 111(e) prohibited the operation of any new source in violation of a performance standard.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 are a lengthy, detailed, technical, complex, and comprehensive response to a major social issue. A small portion of the statute  91 Stat. *849 745-751 (Part D of Title I of the amended Act, 42 U.S. C. §§ 7501-7508)  expressly deals with nonattainment areas. The focal point of this controversy is one phrase in that portion of the Amendments.[22]
Respondents recognize that, and hence point to § 111(a)(3). Although the definition in that section is not literally applicable to the permit program, it sheds as much light on the meaning of the word "source" as anything in the statute.[32] As respondents point out, use of the words "building, structure, facility, or installation," as the definition of source, could be read to impose the permit conditions on an individual building that is a part of a plant.[33] A "word may have a character of its own not to be submerged by its association." Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 514, 519 *861 (1923). On the other hand, the meaning of a word must be ascertained in the context of achieving particular objectives, and the words associated with it may indicate that the true meaning of the series is to convey a common idea. The language may reasonably be interpreted to impose the requirement on any discrete, but integrated, operation which pollutes. This gives meaning to all of the terms  a single building, not part of a larger operation, would be covered if it emits more than 100 tons of pollution, as would any facility, structure, or installation. Indeed, the language itself implies a "bubble concept" of sorts: each enumerated item would seem to be treated as if it were encased in a bubble. While respondents insist that each of these terms must be given a discrete meaning, they also argue that § 111(a)(3) defines "source" as that term is used in § 302(j). The latter section, however, equates a source with a facility, whereas the former defines "source" as a facility, among other items.
Based on our examination of the legislative history, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is unilluminating. 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 . . . ." Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161, 168-169 (1945). Respondents' argument based on the legislative history relies heavily on Senator Muskie's observation that a new source is subject to the LAER requirement.[35] But the full statement is ambiguous and like the text of § 173 itself, this comment does not tell us what a new source is, much less that it is to have an inflexible definition. We find that the legislative history as a whole is silent on the precise issue before us. It is, however, consistent with the view that the EPA should have broad discretion in implementing the policies of the 1977 Amendments.
When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges  who have no constituency  have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 195 (1978).
[1] Section 172(b)(6), 42 U.S. C. § 7502(b)(6), provides:
[6] Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 204 U. S. App. D. C. 51, 636 F.2d 323 (1979); ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 188 U. S. App. D. C. 77, 578 F.2d 319 (1978).
[7] 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. The court below rejected respondents' arguments based on the language and legislative history of the Act. It did agree with respondents contention that the regulations were inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, but did not adopt the construction of the statute advanced by respondents here. 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. See Ryerson v. United States, 312 U.S. 405, 408 (1941); LeTulle v. Scofield, 308 U.S. 415, 421 (1940); Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 533-539 (1931).
[8] E. g., Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.S. 292, 297 (1956); J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55, 59 (1940); Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117, 120 (1827); McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 603 (1821).
[9] The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32 (1981); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 117-118 (1978); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 745-746 (1973); Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369 (1946); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932); Webster v. Luther, 163 U.S. 331, 342 (1896). If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.
[11] The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S., at 39; Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U.S. 443, 450 (1978); Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 75 (1975); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965); Unemployment Compensation Comm'n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 153 (1946); McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U.S. 477, 480-481 (1921).
[12] See, e. g., United States v. Morton, ante, at 834; Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34, 44 (1981); Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 424-426 (1977); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232, 235-237 (1936).
[13] E. g., INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 144 (1981); Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U. S., at 87.
[14] Aluminum Co. of America v. Central Lincoln Peoples' Until Dist., ante, at 389; Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132, 141 (1982); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256 (1976); Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 626-627 (1971); Unemployment Compensation Comm'n v. Aragon, 329 U. S., at 153-154; NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131 (1944); McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U. S., at 480-481; Webster v. Luther, 163 U. S., at 342; Brown v. United States, 113 U.S. 568, 570-571 (1885); United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 (1878); Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210 (1827).
[22] Specifically, the controversy in these cases involves the meaning of the term "major stationary sources" in § 172(b)(6) of the Act, 42 U.S. C. § 7502(b)(6). The meaning of the term "proposed source" in § 173(2) of the Act, 42 U.S. C. § 7503(2), is not at issue.
[40] See SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S., at 117; Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 287, n. 5 (1978); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
[41] See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, ante, at 699-700; United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382 (1961).
DocketNumber： 82-1005
Citation Numbers： 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 118
Williams v. Norris , 25 U.S. 117 ( 1827 )
Webster v. Luther , 163 U.S. 331 ( 1896 )
Ryerson v. United States , 312 U.S. 405 ( 1941 )
Cited By (12290)
Carlos Roberto Vila v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2010 )
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States , 597 F.3d 1278 ( 2010 )
Clark v. Astrue , 602 F.3d 140 ( 2010 )
PRIME TIME INTERN. CO. v. Vilsack , 599 F.3d 678 ( 2010 )
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States , 596 F.3d 1365 ( 2010 )
Chrysler Corp. v. United States , 592 F.3d 1330 ( 2010 )
Patel v. Attorney General of US , 599 F.3d 295 ( 2010 )
Pendley v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW , 601 F.3d 417 ( 2010 )
Estate of Timken v. United States , 601 F.3d 431 ( 2010 )