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: see
citation_a.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_a.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”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference
citation_b.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).