context: An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position."
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 519 U.S. 452, 462
citation_a.parenthetical: agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference
citation_a.sentence: But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: court owes no "deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question"
citation_b.sentence: See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”).