author: Justice White Justice Scalia, Justice Blackmun,

text:
    SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. FINKELSTEIN
    No. 89-504.
    Argued April 24, 1990
    Decided June 18, 1990

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, O’Connor, and Kennedy, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined except as to n. 8. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 631. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 632.

      Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, and Edwin S. Kneedler.

      Kenneth V. Handal argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dennis G. Lyons and Mary G. Sprague.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services may immediately appeal a district court order effectively declaring invalid regulations that limit the kinds of inquiries that must be made to determine whether a person is entitled to disability insurance benefits and remanding a claim for benefits to the Secretary for consideration without those restrictions. We hold that the Secretary may appeal such an order as a “final decision” under 28 U. S. C. § 1291.

I

Respondent Finkelstein is the widow of a wage earner who died in 1980 while fully insured under Title II of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. (1982 ed.). In 1983, respondent applied to the Social Security Administration for widow’s disability benefits, claiming that her heart condition made her disabled within the meaning of the section of the Social Security Act providing for surviving spouses’ disability insurance benefit payments, § 223, as added, 70 Stat. 815, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(B) (1982 ed. and Supp. V).

Section 423(d)(2)(B) states that a widow shall not be determined to be disabled unless her impairment is of a level of severity which, “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,” is deemed sufficient to preclude an individual from engaging in any gainful activity. Under regulations promulgated by the Secretary, 20 CFR §§ 404.1577, 404.1578(a)(1) (1989), a surviving spouse is deemed disabled only if the spouse suffers from a physical or mental impairment meeting or equaling the severity of an impairment included in the Secretary’s Listing of Impairments located at Appendix 1 to 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P (1989). If the surviving spouse’s, impairment does not meet or equal one of the listed impairments, the Secretary will not find the spouse disabled; in particular, the Secretary will not consider whether the spouse’s impairment nonetheless makes the spouse disabled, given the spouse’s age, education, and work experience.

The Secretary’s practice for spouses’ disability insurance benefits thus differs significantly from the regulations for determining whether a wage earner is entitled to disability insurance benefits. For wage earners, the Secretary has established a “five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U. S. 137, 140 (1987). Under that five-step process, even if a wage earner’s impairment does not meet or equal one of the listed impairments, the wage earner may nonetheless be entitled to disability insurance benefits if the Secretary determines that his “impairment in fact prevents him from working.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521, 535 (1990). The Secretary maintains that the difference between the wage earner regulations and the surviving spouse regulations is supported by a difference between the two pertinent statutory definitions of disability. Compare 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A) with § 423(d)(2)(B) (1982 ed. and Supp. V).

Respondent’s application for benefits was denied on the ground that her heart condition did not meet or equal a listed impairment. After exhausting administrative remedies, respondent sought judicial review of the Secretary’s decision in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, invoking § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 53 Stat. 1370, 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (1982 ed.). The District Court sustained the Secretary’s conclusion that respondent did not suffer from an impairment that met or equaled a listed impairment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a. The District Court nonetheless concluded that “the case must be remanded to the Secretary,” id., at 17a, because the record was “devoid of any findings” regarding respondent’s inability to engage in any gainful activity even though her impairment was not equal to one of the listed impairments, see ibid.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the Secretary’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Finkelstein v. Bowen, 869 F. 2d 215 (1989). The Court of Appeals relied on its past decisions holding that “'remands to administrative agencies are not ordinarily appealable.’ ” Id., at 217 (citation omitted). Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged an exception to that rule for cases “in which an important legal issue is finally resolved and review of that issue would be foreclosed ‘as a practical matter’ if an immediate appeal were unavailable,” ibid, (citation omitted), that exception was deemed inapplicable in this case because the Secretary might persist in refusing benefits even after consideration of respondent’s residual functional capacity on remand, and the District Court might thereafter order that benefits be granted, thereby providing the Secretary with an appealable final decision. Id., at 220. The Court of Appeals conceded that the Secretary might not be able to obtain review at a later point if he concluded on remand that respondent was entitled to benefits based on her lack of residual functional capacity, but it believed this argument for immediate appeal-ability to be foreclosed by a prior decision of the Circuit. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1055 (1990).

II

We begin by noting that the issue before us is not the broad question whether remands to administrative agencies are always immediately appealable. There is, of course, a great variety in remands, reflecting in turn the variety of ways in which agency action may be challenged in the district courts and the possible outcomes of such challenges. The question before us rather is whether orders of the type entered by the District Court in this case are immediately appealable by the Secretary. It is necessary therefore to consider precisely what the District Court held and why it remanded this case to the Secretary.

Although the District Court sustained the Secretary’s conclusion that respondent did not suffer from an impairment that met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment, it concluded that the Secretary’s ultimate conclusion that respondent was not disabled could not be sustained because other medical evidence suggested that respondent might not be able to engage in any gainful activity. Considering it “anomalous” that an impairment actually leaving respondent without the residual functional capacity to perform any gainful activity could be insufficient to warrant benefits just because it was not equal to one of the listed impairments, the District Court directed the Secretary “to inquire whether [respondent] may or may not engage in any gainful activity, as contemplated by the Act.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. The District Court’s order thus essentially invalidated, as inconsistent with the Social Security Act, the Secretary’s regulations restricting spouses’ disability insurance benefits to those claimants who can show that they have impairments with “specific clinical findings that are the same as ... or are medically equivalent to” one of the listed impairments, 20 CFR § 404.1578(a)(1) (1989). Cf. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 465-466 (1983). The District Court stated that it was “remand[ing]” the case to the Secretary because the record contained no findings about the functional impact of respondent’s impairment; in effect it ordered the Secretary to address respondent’s ailment without regard for the regulations that would have precluded such consideration. The District Court’s order thus reversed the Secretary’s conclusion that respondent was not disabled and remanded for further consideration of respondent’s medical condition.

Once the nature of the District Court’s action is clarified, it becomes clear how this action fits into the structure of § 405 (g). The first sentence of § 405(g) provides that an individual denied benefits by a final decision of the Secretary may obtain judicial review of that decision by filing “a civil action” in federal district court. The use of the term “a civil action” suggests that at least in the context of § 405(g), each final decision of the Secretary will be reviewable by a separate piece of litigation. The fourth and eighth sentences of § 405(g) buttress this conclusion. The fourth sentence states that in such a civil action, the district court shall have the power to enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” (Emphasis added.) This sentence describes the action that the District Court actually took in this case. In particular, although the fourth sentence clearly foresees the possibility that a district court may remand a cause to the Secretary for rehearing (as the District Court did here), nonetheless such a remand order is a “judgment” in the terminology of § 405(g). What happened in this case is that the District Court entered “a judgment . . . reversing the decision of the Secretary, with . . . remanding the cause for a rehearing.” The District Court’s remand order was unquestionably a “judgment,” as it terminated the civil action challenging the Secretary’s final determination that respondent was not entitled to benefits, set aside that determination, and finally decided that the Secretary could not follow his own regulations in considering the disability issue. Furthermore, should the Secretary on remand undertake the inquiry mandated by the District Court and award benefits, there would be grave doubt, as the Court of Appeals recognized, whether he could appeal his own order. Thus it is that the eighth sentence of § 405(g) provides that “[t]he judgment of the court shall be final except that it shall be subject to review in the same manner as a judgment in other civil actions.” (Emphasis added.)

Respondent makes several arguments countering this construction of § 405(g) and of the District Court’s order, none of which persuade us. First, respondent argues that the remand in this case was ordered not pursuant to the fourth sentence of § 405(g), but under the sixth sentence of that section, which states in pertinent part that the District Court may “at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” Respondent points out that the District Court stated that it was ordering a remand because the evidence on the record was insufficient to support the Secretary’s conclusion and that further factfinding regarding respondent’s ailment was necessary. We do not agree with respondent that the District Court’s action in this case was a “sixth-sentence remand.” The sixth sentence of § 405(g) plainly describes an entirely different kind of remand, appropriate when the district court learns of evidence not in existence or available to the claimant at the time of the administrative proceeding that might have changed the outcome of that proceeding.

For the same reason, we reject respondent’s argument, based on the seventh sentence of § 405(g), that the district court may enter an appealable final judgment upon reviewing the Secretary’s postremand “additional or modified findings of fact and decision.” The postremand review conducted by the District Court under the seventh sentence refers only to cases that were previously remanded under the sixth sentence. The seventh sentence states that the district court may review “[s]uch additional or modified findings of fact,” a reference to the second half of the sixth sentence of § 405(g), which requires that “the Secretary shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or his decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision . . . The phrase “such additional evidence” refers in turn to the “additional evidence” mentioned in the first half of the sixth sentence that the district court may order the Secretary to take in a sixth-sentence remand. See supra, at 625-626. But as the first half of the sixth sentence makes clear, the taking of this additional evidence may be ordered only upon a showing that there is material new evidence. The postremand judicial review contemplated by the seventh sentence of § 405(g) does not fit the kind of remand ordered by the District Court in this case.

Respondent also argues that the eighth sentence of § 405(g), providing that the judgment of the district court “shall be final except that it shall be subject to review in the same manner as a judgment in other civil actions,” does not compel the conclusion that a judgment entered pursuant to the fourth sentence is immediately appealable. In respondent’s view, Congress used the the term “final” in the eighth sentence only to make clear that a court’s decision reviewing agency action could operate as law of the case and res judicata. Cf. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U. S. 320, 336 (1958). But even if it is true that Congress used the term “final” to mean “conclusively decided,” this reading does not preclude the construction of “final” to include “appealable,” a meaning with which “final” is usually coupled. Nor does respondent consider the significance of Congress’ use of the term “judgment” to describe the action taken by the District Court in this case. Although respondent argues that the words “final decisions,” as used in 28 U. S. C. § 1291, encompass no more than what was meant by the terms “final judgments and decrees” in the predecessor statute to § 1291, respondent recognizes that “final judgments” are at the core of matters appealable under § 1291, and respondent does not contest the power of Congress to define a class of orders as “final judgments” that by inference would be appealable under § 1291. Cf. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U. S. 427, 434 (1956). This is what Congress has done in the fourth sentence of § 405(g).

More generally, respondent argues that a power in the district court to remand to an agency is always incident to the power to review agency action and that § 405(g) only expanded the district courts’ equitable powers; therefore, she insists, it is improper to construe § 405(g) as a limit on the district courts’ power to remand. This argument misapprehends what Congress sought to accomplish in § 405(g). The fourth sentence of § 405(g) does not “limit” the district courts’ authority to remand. Rather, the fourth sentence directs the entry of a final, appealable judgment even though that judgment may be accompanied by a remand order. The fourth sentence does not require the district court to choose between entering a final judgment and remanding; to the contrary, it specifically provides that a district court may enter judgment “with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.”

Finally, respondent argues that we already decided last Term, in Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U. S. 877 (1989), that a remand order of the kind entered in this case is not appealable as a final decision. Although there is language in Hudson supporting respondent’s interpretation of that case, we do not find that language sufficient to sustain respondent’s contentions here. In Hudson, we held that under the EAJA, 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), a federal court may award a Social Security claimant attorney’s fees for representation during administrative proceedings held pursuant to a district court order remanding the action to the Secretary. We were concerned there with interpreting the term “any civil action” in the EAJA, not with deciding whether a remand order could be appealed as a “final decision” under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. We noted in Hudson that the language of § 2412(d)(1)(A) must be construed with reference to the purpose of the EAJA and the realities of litigation against the Government. The purpose of the EAJA was to counterbalance the financial disincentives to vindicating rights against the Government through litigation; given this purpose, we could not believe that Congress would “throw the Social Security claimant a lifeline that it knew was a foot short” by denying her attorney’s fees for the mandatory proceedings on remand. Hudson, supra, at 890. We also recognized that even if a claimant had obtained a remand from the district court, she would not be a “prevailing party” for purposes of the EAJA until the result of the administrative proceedings held on remand was known. 490 U. S., at 887-888. We therefore concluded that for purposes of the EAJA, the administrative proceedings on remand “should be considered part and parcel of the action for which fees may be awarded.” Id., at 888. We did not say that proceedings on remand to an agency are “part and parcel” of a civil action in federal district court for all purposes, and we decline to do so today.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in part.

I join the opinion of the Court, except for footnote 8, which responds on the merits to “two arguments based on subsequent legislative history.” Ante, at 628, n. 8.

The legislative history of a statute is the history of its consideration and enactment. “Subsequent legislative history”—which presumably means the post-enactment history of a statute’s consideration and enactment—is a contradiction in terms. The phrase is used to smuggle into judicial consideration legislators’ expressions not of what a bill currently under consideration means (which, the theory goes, reflects what their colleagues understood they were voting for), but of what a law previously enacted means.

It seems to be a rule for the use of subsequent legislative history that the legislators or committees of legislators whose post-enactment views are consulted must belong to the institution that passed the statute. Never, for example, have I seen floor statements of Canadian MP’s cited concerning the meaning of a United States statute; only statements by Members of Congress qualify. No more connection than that, however, is required. It is assuredly not the rule that the legislators or committee members in question must have considered, or at least voted upon, the particular statute in question—or even that they have been members of the particular Congress that enacted it. The subsequent legislative history rejected as inconclusive in today’s footnote, for example, tells us (according to the Court’s analysis) what committees of the 99th and 95th Congresses thought the 76th Congress intended.

In my opinion, the views of a legislator concerning a statute already enacted are entitled to no more weight than the views of a judge concerning a statute not yet passed. In some situations, of course, the expression of a legislator relating to a previously enacted statute may bear upon the meaning of a provision in a bill under consideration—which provision, if passed, may in turn affect judicial interpretation of the previously enacted statute, since statutes in pari materia should be interpreted harmoniously. Such an expression would be useful, if at all, not because it was subsequent legislative history of the earlier statute, but because it was plain old legislative history of the later one.

Arguments based on subsequent legislative history, like arguments based on antecedent futurity, should not be taken seriously, not even in a footnote.

Justice Blackmun,

concurring in the judgment.

I am not convinced, as the other Members of the Court appear to be, that the order with which we are concerned is a final decision. It seems to me that the Court in its opinion expends its energy fending off respondent’s arguments as to nonappealability, without itself demonstrating finality in a positive way.

I concur in the judgment, however. Although I think the order is not a final decision under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, it is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine enunciated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). This is the view adopted by the great majority of the Courts of Appeals, and I am in agreement with their conclusions. See, e. g., Colon v. Secretary of HHS, 877 F. 2d 148, 151-152 (CA1 1989); Doughty v. Bowen, 839 F. 2d 644, 645-646 (CA10 1988); Huie v. Bowen, 788 F. 2d 698, 701-703 (CA11 1986).

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 1291 provides that “[t]he courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (1982 ed.) provides:
      “Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As part of his answer the Secretary shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and where a claim has been denied by the Secretary or a decision is rendered under subsection (b) of this section which is adverse to an individual who was a party to the hearing before the Secretary, because of failure of the claimant or such individual to submit proof in conformity with any regulation prescribed under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall review only the question of conformity with such regulations and the validity of such regulations. The court may, on motion of the Secretary made for good cause shown before he files his answer, remand the case to the Secretary for further action by the Secretary, and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding; and the Secretary shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or his decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based. Such additional or modified findings of fact and decision shall be reviewable only to the extent provided for review of the original findings of fact and decision. The judgment of the court shall be final except that it shall be subject to review in the same manner as a judgment in other civil actions. Any action instituted in accordance with this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Secretary or any vacancy in such office.”

       For example, a district court may on occasion order a remand to an agency even though the district court action was filed by the agency, not someone seeking judicial review, e. g., United States v. Alcon Laboratories, 636 F. 2d 876 (CA1), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 1017 (1981). In other cases the district court may order a remand to the agency but the person seeking judicial review may seek to appeal on the ground that broader relief should have been granted by the district court, e. g., Bohms v. Gardner, 381 F. 2d 283 (CA8 1967), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 964 (1968). None of these situations are presented in this case, and we express no opinion about appealability in those circumstances.

       Specifically, the District Court noted that an Administrative Law Judge “found that the ‘medical findings shown in the medical evidence of record establish the existence of mitral valve prolapse,’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a, which does not meet or equal one of the listed impairments but might, in the District Court’s view, prevent respondent from engaging in any gainful activity, ibid.

       Neither party suggests that the Secretary’s decision denying respondent benefits without considering her mitral valve prolapse was not a “final decision of the Secretary” within the meaning of § 405(g).

       See, e. g., Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F. 2d 872 (CA11 1986); Borders v. Heckler, 777 F. 2d 954, 955 (CA4 1985); Newhouse v. Heckler, 753 F. 2d 283, 287 (CA3 1985); Booz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 734 F. 2d 1378, 1381 (CA9 1984); Dorsey v. Heckler, 702 F. 2d 597, 604-605 (CA5 1983); Cagle v. Califano, 638 F. 2d 219, 221 (CA10 1981). Although all the Circuits recognize that new evidence must be “material” to warrant a sixth-sentence remand, it is not clear whether the Circuits have interpreted the requirement of materiality in the same way. See Dorsey, supra, at 605, n. 9 (criticizing “stricter position” of Fourth and Tenth Circuits); Godsey v. Bowen, 832 F. 2d 443, 444 (CA7 1987) (expressing skepticism about existence of conflict); Borders, supra, at 956 (also skeptical). We express no opinion on the proper definition of materiality in this context.

       It is true, as respondent maintains, that the District Court did not caption its order as a “judgment,” much less a “final judgment.” The label used by the District Court of course cannot control the order’s appealability in this case, any more than it could when a district court labeled a non-appealable interlocutory order as a “final judgment.” See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737 (1976).

       Respondent also makes two arguments based on subsequent legislative history to counter the conclusion that Congress intended orders entered under the fourth sentence of § 405(g) to be appealable final judgments. First, she relies on a committee print prepared by the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee which, in summarizing amendments to the Social Security Act, stated that under prior law, a district court could remand a case to the Secretary on its own motion and that the judgment of the district court would be final after the Secretary filed any modified findings of fact and decision with the court, and that no change had been made by the amendments. See The Social Security Amendments of 1977: Brief Summary of Major Provisions and Detailed Comparison With Prior Law, WMCP No. 95-72, p. 26 (1978) (Brief Summary). The committee print’s observations are entirely consistent with the construction we have placed on remands ordered under the sixth sentence of § 405(g). Moreover, leaving aside all the usual difficulties inherent in relying on subsequent legislative history, see, e. g., United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 281-282 (1947), we note that the print specifically warned that it was prepared by the subcommittee staff for informational purposes only and was not considered or approved by the subcommittee, and that it was designed not to be a section-by-section analysis of the amendments but only a “narrative synopsis.” Brief Summary, at I, V. We therefore cannot assign this committee print any significant weight.
      Second, respondent relies on a House Judiciary Committee Report on amendments to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), stating that a district court’s remand decision under § 405(g) is not a “final judgment.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-120, p. 19 (1985). Again, we cannot conclude that this subsequent legislative history overthrows the language of § 405(g). In the first place, this part of this particular Committee Report concerned the proper time period for filing a petition for attorney’s fees under EAJA, not appealability. Second, the Committee relied in particular on Guthrie v. Schweiker, 718 F. 2d 104 (CA4 1983), for the proposition that a remand order is not a final judgment, but Guthrie also concerned the time for filing an attorney’s fees petition, and it is far from clear that Guthrie did not involve a sixth-sentence remand. Guthrie, in turn, relied on Gilcrist v. Schweiker, 645 F. 2d 818, 819 (CA9 1981), which, quite unlike the present case, involved an appeal from a district court remand order that did “no more than order clarification of the administrative decision.”

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) provides in pertinent part:
      “Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Blackmun Justice White, Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. THE LTV CORP. et al.
    No. 89-390.
    Argued February 27, 1990
    Decided June 18, 1990

      Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Brennan, Marshall, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined, and in which White and O’Connor, JJ., joined except as to the statement of judgment and n. 11. White, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which O’Connor, J., joined, post, p. 656. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 657.

      Carol Connor Flowe argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were James J. Armbruster, Raymond Morgan Forster, Thomas S. Martin, Richard K. Willard, and Charles G. Cole.

      Lewis B. Kaden argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents The LTV Corporation et al. were Karen E. Wagner, Michael J. Crames, Marc Abrams, and Frank Cummings. Robin E. Phelan and Kathryn C. Malloy filed a brief for respondent Banctexas Dallas, N. A. Joel B. Ziueibel, Geoffrey M. Kalmus, Michael J. Dell, and Peter V. Pantaleo filed a brief for respondent LTV Bank Group. R. A. King and Kenneth R. Bruce filed a brief for respondents David H. Miller et al. Edgar H. Booth, Richard H. Kuh, and Mary S. Zitwer filed a brief for respondent Official Committee of Equity Security Holders. Leonard M. Rosen, Lawrence P. King, Theodore Gewertz, Harold S. Novikoff, Brian M. Cogan, and Mark A. Speiser filed a brief for respondent Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Company, Inc. William H. Roberts, Raymond L. Shapiro, Thomas E. Biron, William E. Taylor III, and Ann B. Laupheimer filed a brief for respondent Official Parent Creditors’ Committee of The LTV Corporation.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Starr, Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro, and Christopher J. Wright; for the American Society of Pension Actuaries by Chester J. Salkind; for Armco et al. by Benjamin R. Civiletti and W. Warren Hamel; and for the Retired Employees Benefits Coalition, Inc., by Bruce E. Davis.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Ohio by Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, and Loren L. Braverman; and for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. by Robert M. Weinberg, Jeremiah A. Collins, Peter O. Shinevar, Laurence Gold, Bernard Kleiman, Carl B. Frankel, Paul Whitehead, and Karin S. Feldman.

        William J. Kilberg and Baruch A. Fellner filed a brief for Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. as amicus curiae.

   Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we must determine whether the decision of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to restore certain pension plans under § 4047 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 1028, as amended, 100 Stat. 237, 29 U. S. C. § 1347, was, as the Court of Appeals concluded, arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706.

I

Petitioner PBGC is a wholly owned United States Government corporation, see 29 U. S. C. § 1302, modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. See 120 Cong. Rec. 29950 (1974) (statement of Sen. Bentsen). The Board of Directors of the PBGC consists of the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Commerce. 29 U. S. C. § 1302(d). The PBGC administers and enforces Title IV of ERISA. Title IV includes a mandatory Government insurance program that protects the pension benefits of over 30 million private-sector American workers who participate in plans covered by the Title. In enacting Title IV, Congress sought to ensure that employees and their beneficiaries would not be completely “deprived of anticipated retirement benefits by the termination of pension plans before sufficient funds have been accumulated in the plans.” Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 720 (1984). See also Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361-362, 374-375 (1980).

When a plan covered under Title IV terminates with insufficient assets to satisfy its pension obligations to the employees, the PBGC becomes trustee of the plan, taking over the plan’s assets and liabilities. The PBGC then uses the plan’s assets to cover what it can of the benefit obligations. See 29 U. S. C. § 1344 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). The PBGC then must add its own funds to ensure payment of most of the remaining “nonforfeitable” benefits, i. e., those benefits to which participants have earned entitlement under the plan terms as of the date of termination. §§ 1301(a)(8), 1322(a) and (b). ERISA does place limits on the benefits PBGC may guarantee upon plan termination, however, even if an employee is entitled to greater benefits under the terms of the plan. See 29 CFR § 2621.3(a)(2) and App. A (1989); 29 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(3)(B). In addition, benefit increases resulting from plan amendments adopted within five years of the termination are not paid in full. Finally, active plan participants (current employees) cease to earn additional benefits under the plan upon its termination and lose entitlement to most benefits not yet fully earned as of the date of plan termination. 29 U. S. C. §§ 1322(a) and (b), 1301(a)(8); 29 CFR § 2613.6 (1989).

The cost of the PBGC insurance is borne primarily by employers that maintain ongoing pension plans. Sections 4006 and 4007 of ERISA require these employers to pay annual premiums. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1306 and 1307 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). The insurance program is also financed by statutory liability imposed on employers who terminate underfunded pension plans. Upon termination, the employer becomes liable to the PBGC for the benefits that the PBGC will pay out. Because the PBGC historically has recovered only a small portion of that liability, Congress repeatedly has been forced to increase the annual premiums. Even with these increases, the PBGC in its most recent annual report noted liabilities of $4 billion and assets of only $2.4 billion, leaving a deficit of over $1.5 billion.

As noted above, plan termination is the insurable event under Title IV. Plans may be terminated “voluntarily” by an employer or “involuntarily” by the PBGC. An employer may terminate a plan voluntarily in one of two ways. It may proceed with a “standard termination” only if it has sufficient assets to pay all benefit commitments. A standard termination thus does not implicate PBGC insurance responsibilities. If an employer wishes to terminate a plan whose assets are insufficient to pay all benefits, the employer must demonstrate that it is in financial “distress” as defined in 29 U. S. C. § 1341(c) (1982 ed., Supp. IV). Neither a standard nor a distress termination by the employer, however, is permitted if termination would violate the terms of an existing collective-bargaining agreement. 29 U. S. C. § 1341(a)(3).

The PBGC, though, may terminate a plan “involuntarily,” notwithstanding the existence of a collective-bargaining agreement. Ibid. Section 4042 of ERISA provides that the PBGC may terminate a plan whenever it determines that:

“(1) the plan has not met the minimum funding standard required under section 412 of title 26, or has been notified by the Secretary of the Treasury that a notice of deficiency under section 6212 of title 26 has been mailed with respect to the tax imposed under section 4791(a) of title 26,
“(2) the plan will be unable to pay benefits when due,
“(3) the reportable event described in section 1343(b)(7) of this title has occurred, or
“(4) the possible long-run loss of the [PBGC] with respect to the plan may reasonably be expected to increase unreasonably if the plan is not terminated.” 29 U. S. C. § 1342(a).

Termination can be undone by PBGC. Section 4047 of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1347, provides:

“In the case of a plan which has been terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title the [PBGC] is authorized in any such case in which [it] determines such action to be appropriate and consistent with its duties under this subchapter, to take such action as may be necessary to restore the plan to its pretermination status, including, but not limited to, the transfer to the employer or a plan administrator of control of part or all of the remaining assets and liabilities of the plan.”

When a plan is restored, full benefits are reinstated, and the employer, rather than the PBGC, again is responsible for the plan’s unfunded liabilities.

II

This case arose after respondent The LTV Corporation (LTV Corp.) and many of its subsidiaries, including LTV Steel Company Inc. (LTV Steel), (collectively LTV), in July 1986 filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. At that time, LTV Steel was the sponsor of three defined benefit pension plans (Plans) covered by Title IV of ERISA. Two of the Plans were the products of collective-bargaining negotiations with the United Steelworkers of America (Steelworkers). The third was for nonunion salaried employees. Chronically underfunded, the Plans, by late 1986, had unfunded liabilities for promised benefits of almost $2.3 billion. Approximately $2.1 billion of this amount was covered by PBGC insurance.

It is undisputed that one of LTV Corp.’s principal goals in filing the Chapter 11 petitions was the restructuring of LTV Steel’s pension obligations, a goal which could be accomplished if the Plans were terminated and responsibility for the unfunded liabilities was placed on the PBGC. LTV Steel then could negotiate with its employees for new pension arrangements. LTV, however, could not voluntarily terminate the Plans because two of them had been negotiated in collective bargaining. LTV therefore sought to have the PBGC terminate the Plans.

To that end, LTV advised the PBGC in 1986 that it could not continue to provide complete funding for the Plans. PBGC estimated that, without continued funding, the Plans’ $2.1 billion underfunding could increase by as much as $65 million by December 1987 and by another $63 million by December 1988, unless the Plans were terminated. Moreover, extensive plant shutdowns were anticipated. These shutdowns, if they occurred before the Plans were terminated, would have required the payment of significant “shutdown benefits.” The PBGC estimated that such benefits could increase the Plans’ liabilities by as much as $300 million to $700 million, of which up to $500 million would be covered by PBGC insurance. Confronted with this information, the PBGC, invoking § 4042(a)(4) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1342(a)(4), determined that the Plans should be terminated in order to protect the insurance program from the unreasonable risk of large losses, and commenced termination proceedings in the District Court. With LTV’s consent, the Plans were terminated effective January 13, 1987.

Because the Plans’ participants lost some benefits as a result of the termination, the Steelworkers filed an adversary action against LTV in the Bankruptcy Court, challenging the termination and seeking an order directing LTV to make up the lost benefits. This action was settled, with LTV and the Steelworkers negotiating an interim collective-bargaining agreement that included new pension arrangements intended to make up benefits that plan participants lost as a result of the termination. New payments to retirees were based explicitly upon “a percentage of the difference between the benefit that was being paid under the Prior Plans and the amount paid by the PBGC.” App. 181. Retired participants were thereby placed in substantially the same positions they would have occupied had the old Plans never been terminated. The new agreements respecting active participants were also designed to replace benefits under the old Plans that were not insured by the PBGC, such as early retirement benefits and shutdown benefits. With respect to shutdown benefits, LTV stated in Bankruptcy Court that the new benefits totaled “75% of benefits lost as a result of plan termination.” Id., at 159. With respect to some other kinds of benefits for active participants, the new arrangements provided 100% or more of the lost benefits. Id., at 235.

The PBGC objected to these new pension agreements, characterizing them as “follow-on” plans. It defines a follow-on plan as a new benefit arrangement designed to wrap around the insurance benefits provided by the PBGC in such a way as to provide both retirees and active participants substantially the same benefits as they would have received had no termination occurred. The PBGC’s policy against follow-on plans stems from the agency’s belief that such plans are “abusive” of the insurance program and result in the PBGC’s subsidizing an employer’s ongoing pension program in a way not contemplated by Title IV. The PBGC consistently has made clear its policy of using its restoration powers under § 4047 if an employer institutes an abusive follow-on plan. In three opinion letters, two in 1981 and one in 1986, the PBGC stated: “[T]he termination insurance program of Title IV was not intended to subsidize an employer’s ongoing retirement program.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 162a, 167a, 173a. Accordingly, the PBGC has indicated that if an employer adopts a new plan that, “together with the guaranteed benefits paid by the PBGC under the terminated plan, provide[s] for the payment of, accrual of, or eligibility for benefits that are substantially the same as those provided under the terminated plan,” App. 229, the PBGC will view the plan as an attempt to shift liability to the termination insurance program while continuing to operate the plan.

LTV ignored the PBGC’s objections to the new pension arrangements and asked the Bankruptcy Court for permission to fund the follow-on plans. The Bankruptcy Court granted LTV’s request. In doing so, however, it noted that the PBGC “may have legal options or avenues that it can assert administratively . . . to implement its policy goals. Nothing done here tonight precludes the PBGC from pursuing these options. . . .” Id., at 261.

In early August 1987, the PBGC determined that the financial factors on which it had relied in terminating the Plans had changed significantly. Of particular significance to the PBGC was its belief that the steel industry, including LTV Steel, was experiencing a dramatic turnaround. As a result, the PBGC concluded it no longer faced the imminent risk, central to its original termination decision, of large unfunded liabilities stemming from plant shutdowns. Later that month, the PBGC’s internal working group made a recommendation, based upon LTV’s improved financial circumstances and its follow-on plans, to the PBGC’s Executive Director to restore the Plans under the PBGC’s § 4047 powers. After consulting the PBGC’s Board of Directors, which agreed with the working group that restoration was appropriate, the Executive Director decided to restore the Plans.

The Director issued a notice of restoration on September 22, 1987, indicating the PBGC’s intent to restore the terminated Plans. The PBGC notice explained that the restoration decision was based on (1) LTV’s establishment of “a retirement program that results in an abuse of the pension plan termination insurance system established by Title IV of ERISA,” and (2) LTV’s “improved financial circumstances.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a. Restoration meant that the Plans were ongoing, and that LTV again would be responsible for administering and funding them.

LTV refused to comply with the restoration decision. This prompted the PBGC to initiate an enforcement action in the District Court. The court vacated the PBGC’s restoration decision, finding, among other things, that the PBGC had exceeded its authority under § 4047. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 87 B. R. 779 (SDNY 1988).

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the PBGC’s restoration decision was “arbitrary and capricious” or contrary to law under the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A), in various ways. 875 F. 2d 1008, 1015-1021 (1989). The court first concluded that the PBGC’s action was arbitrary and capricious because the PBGC focused “inordinately on ERISA” to the exclusion of other laws. Id., at 1016. The court then found the agency’s anti-follow-on policy to be contrary to law because the “legislative history of section 4047 reveals no indication that Congress intended the establishment of successive [i. e., follow-on] benefit plans to be a ground for restoration.” Id., at 1017. The court also found the PBGC’s other basis for restoration—improved financial condition—inadequate because the PBGC did not explain many of its economic assumptions. Id., at 1018-1020. Finally, the court concluded that the agency’s restoration decision was arbitrary and capricious because the PBGC’s decisionmaking process of informal adjudication lacked adequate procedural safeguards. Id., at 1021.

Because of the significant administrative law questions raised by this case, and the importance of the PBGC’s insurance program, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 932 (1989).

III

A

The Court of Appeals first held that the restoration decision was arbitrary and capricious under § 706(2)(A) because the PBGC did not take account of all the areas of law the court deemed relevant to the restoration decision. The court expressed the view that “[b]ecause ERISA, bankruptcy and labor law are involved in the case at hand, there must be a showing on the administrative record that PBGC, before reaching its decision, considered all of these areas of the law, and to the extent possible, honored the policies underlying them.” 875 F. 2d, at 1015. The court concluded that the administrative record did not reflect thorough and explicit consideration by the PBGC of the “policies and goals” of each of the three bodies of law. Id., at 1016. As the court put it, the PBGC “focused inordinately on ERISA.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals did not hold that the PBGC’s decision actually conflicted with any provision in the bankruptcy or labor laws, or that the PBGC’s action “trench[ed] upon the . . . jurisdiction” of another agency. See Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 173 (1962). Rather, the court held that because labor law and bankruptcy law are “involved in the case at hand,” the PBGC had an affirmative obligation, which had not been met, to address them. 875 F. 2d, at 1015.

The PBGC contends that the Court of Appeals misapplied the general rule that an agency must take into consideration all relevant factors, see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 416 (1971), by requiring the agency explicitly to consider and discuss labor and bankruptcy law. We agree.

First, and most important, we do not think that the requirement imposed by the Court of Appeals upon the PBGC can be reconciled with the plain language of § 4047, under which the PBGC is operating in this case. This section gives the PBGC the power to restore terminated plans in any case in which the PBGC determines such action to be “appropriate and consistent with its duties under this title [i. e., Title IV of ERISA]” (emphasis added). The statute does not direct the PBGC to make restoration decisions that further the “public interest” generally, but rather empowers the agency to restore when restoration would further the interests that Title IV of ERISA is designed to protect. Given this specific and unambiguous statutory mandate, we do not think that the PBGC did or could focus “inordinately” on ERISA in making its restoration decision.

Even if Congress’ directive to the PBGC had not been so clear, we are not entirely sure that the Court of Appeals’ holding makes good sense as a general principle of administrative law. The PBGC points out problems that would arise if federal courts routinely were to require each agency to take explicit account of public policies that derive from federal statutes other than the agency’s enabling Act. To begin with, there are numerous federal statutes that could be said to embody countless policies. If agency action may be disturbed whenever a reviewing court is able to point to an arguably relevant statutory policy that was not explicitly considered, then a very large number of agency decisions might be open to judicial invalidation.

The Court of Appeals’ directive that the PBGC give effect to the “policies and goals” of other statutes, apart from what those statutes actually provide, is questionable for another reason as well. Because the PBGC can claim no expertise in the labor and bankruptcy areas, it may be ill equipped to undertake the difficult task of discerning and applying the “policies and goals” of those fields. This Court recently observed:

“[N]o legislation pursues its purposes at all costs. Deciding what competing values will or will not be sacrificed to the achievement of a particular objective is the very essence of legislative choice—and it frustrates rather than effectuates legislative intent simplistically to assume that whatever furthers the statute’s primary objective must be the law.” Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 525-526 (1987).

For these reasons, we believe the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the PBGC’s restoration decision was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed adequately to consider principles and policies of bankruptcy law and labor law.

B

The Court of Appeals also rejected the grounds for restoration that the PBGC did assert and discuss. The court found that the first ground the PBGC proffered to support the restoration—its policy against follow-on plans—was contrary to law because there was no indication in the text of the restoration provision, § 4047, or its legislative history that Congress intended the PBGC to use successive benefit plans as a basis for restoration. The PBGC argues that in reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeals departed from traditional principles of statutory interpretation and judicial review of agency construction of statutes. Again, we must agree.

In Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), we set forth the general principles to be applied when federal courts review an agency’s interpretation of the statute it implements:

“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. 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. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. ” Id., at 842-843 (footnotes omitted).

Here, the PBGC has interpreted § 4047 as giving it the power to base restoration decisions on the existence of follow-on plans. Our task, then, is to determine whether any clear congressional desire to avoid restoration decisions based on successive pension plans exists, and, if the answer is in the negative, whether the PBGC’s policy is based upon a permissible construction of the statute. See Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U. S. 714 (1989) (applying Chevron principles to the PBGC’s construction of ERISA).

Turning to the first half of the inquiry, we observe that the text of § 4047 does not evince a clear congressional intent to deprive the PBGC of the ability to base restoration decisions on the existence of follow-on plans. To the contrary, the textual grant of authority to the PBGC embodied in this section is broad. As noted above, the section authorizes the PBGC to restore terminated plans “in any such case in which [the PBGC] determines such action to be appropriate and consistent with its duties under [Title IV of ERISA].” 29 U. S. C. § 1347. The PBGC’s duties consist primarily of furthering the statutory purposes of Title IV identified by Congress. These are:

“(1) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans for the benefit of their participants,
“(2) to provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits to participants and beneficiaries under plans to which this subchapter applies, and
“(3) to maintain premiums established by [the PBGC] under section 1306 of this title at the lowest level consistent with carrying out the obligations under this sub-chapter.” 29 U. S. C. § 1302(a).

On their face, of course, none of these statutorily identified purposes has anything to say about the precise question at issue—the use of follow-on plans as a basis for restoration decisions.

Nor do any of the other traditional tools of statutory construction compel the conclusion that Congress intended that the PBGC not base its restoration decisions on follow-on plans. The Court of Appeals relied extensively on passages in the legislative history of the 1974 enactment of ERISA which suggest that Congress considered financial recovery a valid basis for restoration, but which make no mention of follow-on plans. The court reasoned that because follow-ons were not among the bases for restoration discussed by Members of Congress, that body must have intended that the existence of follow-ons not be a reason for restoring pension plans. See 875 F. 2d, at 1017.

We do not agree with this conclusion. We first note that the discussion in the legislative history concerning grounds for restoration was not limited to the financial-recovery example. The House Conference Report indicated that restoration was appropriate if financial recovery or “some other factor made termination no longer advisable.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 378 (1974). Moreover, and more generally, the language of a statute—particularly language expressly granting an agency broad authority—is not to be regarded as modified by examples set forth in the legislative history. An example, after all, is just that: an illustration of a statute’s operation in practice. It is not, as the Court of Appeals apparently thought, a definitive interpretation of a statute’s scope. We see no suggestion in the legislative history that Congress intended its list of examples to be exhaustive. Under these circumstances, we conclude that ERISA’s legislative history does not suggest “clear congressional intent” on the question of follow-on plans.

The Court of Appeals also relied on the legislative history of the 1987 amendments to ERISA effected by the Pension Protection Act, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-333. See 875 F. 2d, at 1017. This history reveals that Congress in 1987 considered, but did not enact, a provision that expressly would have authorized the PBGC to prohibit follow-on plans. But subsequent legislative history is a “hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier” Congress. United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960). It is a particularly dangerous ground on which to rest an interpretation of a prior statute when it concerns, as it does here, a proposal that does not become law. See, e. g., United States v. Wise, 370 U. S. 405, 411 (1962). Congressional inaction lacks “persuasive significance” because “several equally tenable inferences” may be drawn from such inaction, “including the inference that the existing legislation already incorporated the offered change.” Ibid. These admonitions are especially apt in the instant case because Congress was aware of the action taken by the PBGC with respect to LTV at the time it rejected the proposed amendment. See H. R. Rep. No. 100-391, pt. 1, pp. 106-107 (1987). Despite Congress’ awareness of the PBGC’s belief that the adoption of follow-on plans was a ground for restoration, Congress did not amend § 4047 to restrict the PBGC’s discretion. The conclusion that Congress thought the PBGC was properly exercising its authority is at least as plausible as any other. Thus, the legislative history surrounding the 1987 amendments provides no more support than the 1974 legislative history for the Court of Appeals’ holding that the PBGC’s interpretation of § 4047 contravened clear congressional will.

Having determined that the PBGC’s construction is not contrary to clear congressional intent, we still must ascertain whether the agency’s policy is based upon a “permissible” construction of the statute, that is, a construction that is “rational and consistent with the statute.” NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers, 484 U. S. 112, 123 (1987); see also Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U. S. 83 (1990). Respondents argue that the PBGC’s anti-follow-on policy is irrational because, as a practical matter, no purpose is served when the PBGC bases a restoration decision on something other than the improved financial health of the employer. According to respondents, “financial improvement [is] both a necessary and a sufficient condition for restoration. The agency’s asserted abuse policy . . . is logically irrelevant to the restoration decision.” Brief for Respondents LTV Corp. and LTV Steel 33 (emphasis added). We think not. The PBGC’s anti-follow-on policy is premised on the belief, which we find eminently reasonable, that employees will object more strenuously to a company’s original decision to terminate a plan (or to take financial steps that make termination likely) if the company cannot use a follow-on plan to put the employees in the same (or a similar) position after termination as they were in before. The availability of a follow-on plan thus would remove a significant check—employee resistance—against termination of a pension plan.

Consequently, follow-on plans may tend to frustrate one of the objectives of ERISA that the PBGC is supposed to accomplish—the “continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans.” 29 U. S. C. § 1302(a)(1). In addition, follow-on plans have a tendency to increase the PBGC’s deficit and increase the insurance premiums all employers must pay, thereby frustrating another related statutory objective—the maintenance of low premiums. See 29 U. S. C. § 1302(a)(3). In short, the PBGC’s construction based upon its conclusion that the existence of follow-on plans will lead to more plan terminations and increased PBGC liabilities is “assuredly a permissible one.” Everhart, 494 U. S., at 93. Indeed, the judgments about the way the real world works that have gone into the PBGC’s anti-follow-on policy are precisely the kind that agencies are better equipped to make than are courts. This practical agency expertise is one of the principal justifications behind Chevron deference. See 467 U. S., at 865.

None of this is to say that financial improvement will never be relevant to a restoration decision. Indeed, if an employer’s financial situation remains so dire that restoration would lead inevitably to immediate retermination, the PBGC may decide not to restore a terminated plan even where the employer has instituted a follow-on plan. For present purposes, however, it is enough for us to decide that where, as here, there is no suggestion that immediate retermination of the plans will be necessary, it is rational for the PBGC to disfavor follow-on plans.

C

Finally, we consider the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the agency procedures were inadequate in this particular case. Relying upon a passage in Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 288, n. 4 (1974), the court held that the PBGC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the “PBGC neither apprised LTV of the material on which it was to base its decision, gave LTV an adequate opportunity to offer contrary evidence, proceeded in accordance with ascertainable standards . . . , nor provided [LTV] a statement showing its reasoning in applying those standards.” 875 F. 2d, at 1021. The court suggested that on remand the agency was required to do each of these things.

The PBGC argues that this holding conflicts with Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519 (1978), where, the PBGC contends, this Court made clear that when the Due Process Clause is not implicated and an agency’s governing statute contains no specific procedural mandates, the APA establishes the maximum procedural requirements a reviewing court may impose on agencies. Although Vermont Yankee concerned additional procedures imposed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the Atomic Energy Commission when the agency was engaging in informal rulemaking, the PBGC argues that the informal adjudication process by which the restoration decision was made should be governed by the same principles.

Respondents counter by arguing that courts, under some circumstances, do require agencies to undertake additional procedures. As support for this proposition, they rely on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971). In Overton Park, the Court concluded that the Secretary of Transportation’s “post hoc rationalizations” regarding a decision to authorize the construction of a highway did not provide “an [a]dequate basis for [judicial] review” for purposes of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §706. Id., at 419. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court on remand to consider evidence that shed light on the Secretary’s reasoning at the time he made the decision. Of particular relevance for present purposes, the Court in Overton Park intimated that one recourse for the District Court might be a remand to the agency for a fuller explanation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action. See id., at 420-421. Subsequent cases have made clear that remanding to the agency in fact is the preferred course. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744 (1985) (“[I]f the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation”). Respondents contend that the instant case is controlled by Overton Park rather than Vermont Yankee, and that the Court of Appeals’ ruling was thus correct.

We believe that respondents’ argument is wide of the mark. We begin by noting that although one initially might feel that there is some tension between Vermont Yankee and Overton Park, the two cases are not necessarily inconsistent. Vermont Yankee stands for the general proposition that courts are not free to impose upon agencies specific procedural requirements that have no basis in the APA. See 435 U. S., at 524. At most, Overton Park suggests that § 706 (2)(A), which directs a court to ensure that an agency action is not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law, imposes a general “procedural” requirement of sorts by mandating that an agency take whatever steps it needs to provide an explanation that will enable the court to evaluate the agency’s rationale at the time of decision.

Here, unlike in Overton Park, the Court of Appeals did not suggest that the administrative record was inadequate to enable the court to fulfill its duties under § 706. Rather, to support its ruling, the court focused on “fundamental fairness” to LTV. 875 F. 2d, at 1020-1021. With the possible exception of the absence of “ascertainable standards”—by which we are not exactly sure what the Court of Appeals meant—the procedural inadequacies cited by the court all relate to LTV’s role in the PBGC’s decisionmaking process. But the court did not point to any provision in ERISA or the APA which gives LTV the procedural rights the court identified. Thus, the court’s holding runs afoul of Vermont Yankee and finds no support in Overton Park.

Nor is Arkansas-Best, the case on which the Court of Appeals relied, to the contrary. The statement relied upon (which was dictum) said: “A party is entitled, of course, to know the issues on which decision will turn and to be apprised of the factual material on which the agency relies for decision so that he may rebut it.” 419 U. S., at 288, n. 4. That statement was entirely correct in the context of Arkansas-Best, which involved a formal adjudication by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to the trial-type procedures set forth in §§ 5, 7 and 8 of the APA, 5 U. S. C. §§ 554, 556-557, which include requirements that parties be given notice of “the matters of fact and law asserted,” § 554(b)(3), an opportunity for “the submission and consideration of facts [and] arguments,” § 554(c)(1), and an opportunity to submit “proposed findings and conclusions” or “exceptions,” § 557(c)(1), (2). See 5 U. S. C. § 554(a); 49 Stat. 548, 54 Stat. 913, formerly codified at 49 U. S. C. §§ 17, 305(h) (1976 ed.), repealed 92 Stat. 1466; 96 Stat. 2444. The determination in this case, however, was lawfully made by informal adjudication, the minimal requirements for which are set forth in the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 555, and do not include such elements. A failure to provide them where the Due Process Clause itself does not require them (which has not been asserted here) is therefore not unlawful.

IV

We conclude that the PBGC’s failure to consider all potentially relevant areas of law did not render its restoration decision arbitrary and capricious. We also conclude that the PBGC’s anti-follow-on policy, an asserted basis for the restoration decision, is not contrary to clear congressional intent and is based on a permissible construction of § 4047. Finally, we find the procedures employed by the PBGC to be consistent with the APA. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join the Court’s opinion except for the statement of the judgment and footnote 11. In particular, I agree that the anti-follow-on policy at issue here is not contrary to the statute and that the PBGC would not have been prohibited from applying that policy as a basis for restoration in this case. Unlike the Court, however, I cannot read the notice of restoration as relying on the anti-follow-on policy and respondents’ alleged improved financial position as alternative, independent grounds for restoration. The notice, as I read it, clearly rested on both grounds in conjunction. Furthermore, it would make good sense to rely on improved financial position, for without it there would be a risk of an early re-termination of the plan. At the very least, there is serious doubt about the matter, and if the Court of Appeals was correct that the PBGC’s assessment of respondents’ financial position was inadequate—and I think it was—the case should be remanded to the agency to consider whether the anti-follow-on plan by itself provides sufficient grounds for a restoration order.

I realize that the PBGC represented at oral argument that it had relied on its anti-follow-on policy and on respondents’ improved financial condition as separate and independent grounds for the restoration, Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-26, but counsel’s post hoc rationalizations are no substitute for adequate action by the agency itself. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U. S. 29, 50 (1983). Nor may the PBGC’s restoration order be upheld even though the agency might reach the same result on remand, relying only on the anti-follow-on policy. “[The agency’s] action must be measured by what [it] did, not by what it might have done. . . . The [agency’s] action cannot be upheld merely because findings might have been made and considerations disclosed which would justify its order as an appropriate safeguard for the interests protected by the Act.” SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 93-94 (1943).

I would therefore reverse the Court of Appeals in part, affirm in part, and remand with directions to return the case to the PBGC.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

In my opinion, at least with respect to ERISA plans that the PBGC has terminated involuntarily, the use of its restoration power under § 4047 to prohibit “follow-on” plans is contrary to the agency’s statutory mandate. Unless there was a sufficient improvement in LTV’s financial condition to justify the restoration order, I believe it should be set aside. I, therefore, would remand the case for a determination of whether that ground for the agency decision is adequately supported by the record.

A company that is undergoing reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code continues to operate an ongoing business and must have a satisfactory relationship with its work force in order to complete the reorganization process successfully. If its previous pension plans have been involuntarily terminated with the consequence that the PBGC has assumed the responsibility for discharging a significant share of the company’s pension obligations, that responsibility by the PBGC is an important resource on which the company has a right to rely during the reorganization process. It may use the financial cushion to fund capital investments, to pay current salary, or to satisfy contractual obligations, including the obligation to pay pension benefits. As long as the company uses its best efforts to complete the reorganization (and, incidentally, to reimburse the PBGC for payments made to its former employees to the extent required by ERISA), the PBGC does not have any reason to interfere with managerial decisions that the company makes and the bankruptcy court approves. Whether the company’s resources are dedicated to current expenditures or capital investments and whether the package of employee benefits that is provided to the work force is composed entirely of wages, vacation pay, and health insurance, on the one hand, or includes additional pension benefits, on the other, should be matters of indifference to the PBGC. Indeed, if it was faithful to the statement of congressional purposes in ERISA, see ante, at 648, it should favor an alternative that increases the company’s use and maintenance of pension plans and that provides for continued payment to existing plan beneficiaries. The follow-on plans, in my opinion, are wholly consistent with the purposes of ERISA.

According to the Court, the PBGC policy is premised on the belief that if the company cannot adopt a follow-on plan, the employees will object more strenuously (1) in the case of a voluntary termination, to the “company’s original decision to terminate a plan”; and (2) in the case of an involuntary termination, to the company’s decision “to take financial steps that make termination likely.” Ante, at 651. That belief might be justified in the case of a voluntary termination of an ERISA plan. Since the follow-on plan would be adopted immediately after plan termination, those who could object to the insurable event are also reasonably assured of receiving benefits when the insurance is paid. That view is wholly unwarranted, however, in the case of an involuntary termination. The insurable event, plan termination, is within the control of the PBGC, which presumably has determined that the company does not have the financial resources to meet its current pension obligations. Even if the company could adopt a follow-on plan, the employees will be no less likely to object to the financial steps that will lead to plan termination because they would have no basis for belief that a union will insist on that course when, perhaps years later, the PBGC involuntarily terminates the plan. The safety that comes from a healthy pension plan will not be overcome by the hope that a future union will remember the interests of its retirees and former employees. Plan restoration in these circumstances is not a legitimate curative to the problem of moral hazard, but rather constitutes punishment of both labor and management for the imprudence of their predecessors.

In the case of an involuntary termination, if a mistake in the financial analysis is made, or if there is a sufficient change in the financial condition of the company to justify a reinstatement of the company’s obligation, the PBGC should use its restoration powers. Without such a financial justification, however, there is nothing in the statute to authorize the PBGC’s use of that power to prevent a company from creating or maintaining the kind of employee benefit program that the statute was enacted to encourage.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       Title IV covers virtually all “defined benefit” pension plans sponsored by private employers. A defined benefit plan is one that promises to pay employees, upon retirement, a fixed benefit under a formula that takes into account factors such as final salary and years of service with the employer. See 29 U. S. C. § 1321. It is distinguished from a “defined contribution” plan (also known as an “individual account” plan), under which the employer typically contributes a percentage of an employee’s compensation to an account, and the employee is entitled to the account upon retirement. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1002(34) and (35). ERISA insurance does not cover defined contribution plans because employees are not promised any particular level of benefits; instead, they are promised only that they will receive the balances in their individual accounts.

       Prior to 1987, employers were liable for only 75% of PBGC’s expenditures. In that year, Congress eliminated the 75% cap. See Pension Protection Act, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-333.

       The Steelworkers appealed the District Court’s judgment (giving effect to the PBGC’s termination) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court affirmed. Jones & Laughlin Hourly Pension Plan v. LTV Corp., 824 F. 2d 197 (1987).

       Thereafter, the Executive Director offered to meet with LTV to “consider any additional information [it] might wish to supply.” App. 348. Representatives of LTV and the PBGC then met on September 19 and 21, 1987. At these meetings, LTV officials expressed concern about the timing of the restoration decision and indicated that restoration would give rise to time-consuming litigation, which would cast doubt on the bankruptcy reorganization, thereby imposing hardship on other creditors.

       The PBGC also gave a third reason for restoration—LTV’s “demonstrated willingness to fund employee retirement arrangements.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a. Before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the PBGC conceded that this reason was not an independent basis for the restoration decision but rather was “subsumed [with]in the other two” grounds. See 875 F. 2d 1008, 1020 (1989). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals did not address this explanation for restoration, and neither do we.

       Meanwhile, LTV filed an action in the Bankruptcy Court alleging that restoration would violate the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U. S. C. § 362(a). The District Court granted the PBGC’s motion to withdraw LTV’s action from the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 157(d), and considered the two actions together. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 86 B. R. 33 (SDNY 1987).

       It is worth noting that the provisions of ERISA itself do take account of other areas of federal law. For example, as noted above, an employer may not voluntarily terminate a plan if to do so would violate the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. 29 U. S. C. § 1341(a)(3).

       Justice Stevens suggests that the possibility of follow-on plans will make employees “no less likely to object to the financial steps that will lead to [an involuntary] plan termination because they would have no basis for belief that a union will insist on [the adoption of follow-on plans] when, perhaps years later, the PBGC involuntarily terminates the plan.” Post, at 659 (dissenting opinion). There is no reason to believe, however, that financial decisions that lead to an involuntary termination always or ordinarily occur far in advance of the termination itself. Thus, as Justice Stevens himself acknowledges with respect to a voluntary termination, “those who could object to [the events resulting in an involuntary termination may also be] reasonably assured of receiving benefits when the insurance is paid.” Ibid. Moreover, even when an involuntary termination does not occur until well after the financial decisions that lead to termination are made, we think the PBGC’s apparent belief that employee resistance to those financial decisions will be lessened to some degree by the prospect of follow-on plans after termination is not an unreasonable one.

       For example, the PBGC did not restore a fourth LTV plan that had been terminated because, among other things, the plan had insufficient assets to pay benefits when due. App. 318.

       In this respect we observe that in its notice of restoration, the PBGC relied on the long-term potential for PBGC liability. See 29 U. S. C. § 1342(a)(4). The PBGC did not conclude that the Plans were in any imminent danger or that LTV could not meet the statutory minimum-funding requirements. In fact, the PBGC observed in the notice that LTV did have “sufficient cash” to cover current benefits. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 183a. No party has suggested to this Court that, at the time of restoration, immediate retermination, either voluntary or involuntary, was likely.

       Because we, like the Court of Appeals, read the PBGC’s notice of restoration as indicating that the PBGC’s anti-follow-on policy constitutes an independent ground for the restoration decision, we need not address that court’s ruling that the PBGC’s methodology with regard to the other asserted basis for restoration—improved financial condition—was flawed.

       At the time of the termination of the LTV plans, the PBGC was entitled to recover only 75 percent of the amounts expended to discharge LTV’s pension obligations. The statute has since been amended to authorize a 100 percent recovery. LTV represents that if the restoration order is upheld, and if—as seems highly probable—it is promptly followed by another termination, the PBGC bankruptcy claim will increase from about $2 billion to more than $3 billion. Brief for Respondents LTV Corp. and LTV Steel 33, n. 21. The PBGC, of course, does not assert this change as a justification for the restoration order.

       The three opinion letters identifying the PBGC policy concerning follow-on plans all involved voluntary terminations. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 159a, 165a, 172a. The restoration order entered in this case was unprecedented.