-112-
use in applying National Muffler4 compared to Chevron.5 This
case may therefore be a good vehicle for appellate guidance on
whether National Muffler continues to be in good working order
after Chevron, Mead,6 and Brand X.
I.
The majority begins its analysis, as I agree we should,
with the question of whether section 882's phrase “in the manner
prescribed by subtitle F” has an unambiguous meaning. Whether
National Muffler or Chevron applies, there is no doubt that if
Congress has spoken on the issue, no regulation in conflict can
survive. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end
of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give
effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-843; see also National Muffler, 440
U.S. at 476.
But what materials should a court look at to decide whether
a statutory phrase is unambiguous? The answer is in Natl. R.R.
Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407, 417
(1992) (citations omitted): “a court must look to the structure
4 National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc., v. United States,
440 U.S. 472 (1979).
5 Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
6 United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
Page: Previous 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011