---

545 U.S. ____ (2005)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

Nos. 04—277 and 04—281

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 27, 2005]

Justice Stevens, concurring.

While I join the Court’s opinion in full, I add this caveat concerning Part III—B, which correctly explains why a court of appeals’ interpretation of an ambiguous provision in a regulatory statute does not foreclose a contrary reading by the agency. That explanation would not necessarily be applicable to a decision by this Court that would presumably remove any pre-existing ambiguity.