with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion, and write separately only to note that our decision demonstrates the continuing and unchanged vitality of the test for judicial review of agency determinations of law set forth in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). Some courts have mistakenly concluded otherwise, on the basis of dicta in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 446-448 (1987). See, e. g., Union of Concerned Scientists v. *134NRC, 266 U. S. App. D. C. 381, 386, 824 F. 2d 108, 113 (1987); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. Brock, 259 U. S. App. D. C. 457, 460-461, 816 F. 2d 761, 764-765 (1987); Adams House Health Care v. Heckler, 817 F. 2d 587, 593-594 (CA9 1987). If the dicta of Cardoza-Fonseca, as opposed to its expressed adherence to Chevron, were to be applied here, surely the question whether dismissal of complaints requires Board approval and thus qualifies for judicial review under 29 U. S. C. § 160(f) would be “a pure question of statutory construction” rather than the application of a “standar[d] to a particular set of facts,” as to which “the courts must respect the interpretation of the agency,” 480 U. S., at 446, 448. Were we to follow those dicta, therefore, we would be deciding this issue conclusively and authoritatively, rather than merely “deciding] whether the agency’s regulatory placement is permissible,” ante, at 125. The same would be true, moreover, of the many other decisions alluded to by the Court in which “we have traditionally accorded the Board deference with regard to its interpretation of the NLRA,” ante, at 123. Those cases, and this, are decided correctly only because “the statute is silent or ambiguous” with respect to an issue relevant to the agency’s administration of the law committed to its charge — which is the test for deference set forth in Chevron.