Document: 496 U.S. 530 110 S.Ct. 2528 L.Ed.2d 480 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 89-369. Argued March 21, 1990. Decided June 14, Syllabus The Clean Air Act was amended in 1970 to deal with a perceived national air-pollution emergency. amendments required that the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgate ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) within 30 days and each State thereafter submit state implementation plan (SIP) nine months. Section 110(a)(2) approve SIP four months its submission if met various substantive requirements. 110(a)(3) authorizes propose revision requires he determines, among other things, it "meets requirements [§ ]." In 1980, EPA approved Massachusetts' proposed governing certain emissions from automobile-painting operations. permitted petitioner General Motors Corporation (GMC)—whose automobile plant's painting operation is source ozone—to meet limits stages, but full compliance by December 31, 1985. 1985, GMC sought an extension deadline until summer 1987. Massachusetts submitted on day before existing SIP's deadline, did not reject September 1988. meantime, sent notice violation SIP, Government filed enforcement action District Court. May 1988, Court entered summary judgment for GMC, holding § imposed 4-month time limit review revision, therefore barred enforcing end period finally acted revision. Although agreeing Appeals reversed, concluding failure preclude SIP. Held: 1. act Since 110(a)(2)'s requirement enacted as one series deadlines designed assure quick pollution-control requirements, section refers only original Moreover, absence express process months, this free read such limitation into 110(a)(3). That incorporates substantive, procedural, 110(a)(2). Nor does 110(g)—which Governor, circumstances, temporarily suspend which has when taken "within month period"—impose EPA. require do anything, incorporation mistaken presupposition some "four period" "required" impose general Pp. 536-539. 2. subject Administrative Procedure Act's agencies conclude matters reasonable time," bringing suit enforce unreasonably delays This will infer bar specific provision suggesting Congress intended create one. fact, plainly states may bring whenever person any "applicable plan" requirement, 113(b)(2), there little doubt remains even after See, e.g., Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 60, 92, 95 1470, 1488, 43 731. It significant explicitly elsewhere Act, see 113(d)(10), failed so at issue, provided other, less drastic, remedies §§ 304(a)(2), 113(b). 539-542. 876 F.2d 1060 (C.A.1 1989), affirmed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Theodore L. Garrett, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Lawrence G. Wallace, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN 1 case concerns against (GMC). We are asked decide whether also applies whether, fails complete timely manner, prevented 2 * What known 77 Stat. 392, became law 17, 1963. Twenty years ago, Amendments 1970, 84 1676, comprehensive program made States Federal partners struggle pollution. threats human health were regarded urgent, result expeditious establishment programs problem. specified detailed timetable federal accomplish objective. They Administrator, passage amendments, (NAAQS). 109(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7409(a)(1) (1982 ed.). Within thereafter, implement, maintain, NAAQS. 110(a)(1), 7410(a)(1) As final step start-up phase program, months: "The shall, date under paragraph (1), or disapprove portion thereof." 110(a)(2), amended, 7410(a)(2) directed determined adopted hearing including limitations, devices monitoring air-quality data, mechanisms. 3 integrated established reflected urgency establishing controls. But recognized local needs control strategies could evolve over would have change well. authorized revisions, "if determines meets (2) been public hearings." 110(a)(3), 7410(a)(3)(A) 4 empowered order applicable plan, 113(a), 7413(a) ed.), seek injunctive relief violating order, 113(b), 7413(b) addition, prescribed criminal penalties knowing violations plans orders, 113(c), 7413(c) citizen suits injunctions violators, enforcement, 304, 7604 5 further 1977. 91 685. added concept "nonattainment area"—an area where falls short 172(2), 7501(2) attainment primary NAAQS nonattainment 1982. 172(a)(1), 7502(a)(1) Further extensions "photochemical oxidants" (ozone) carbon monoxide, demonstrated possible 1983 "despite all reasonably available measures" be achieved "as expeditiously practicable, later than 1987." 172(a)(2), 7502(a)(2) II A. 6 entire Commonwealth respect ozone. See 40 CFR 81.322, p. 126 (1989). Petitioner owns operates assembly plant Framingham, Mass. volatile organic compounds contribute compound 1981, published policy statement new technology operations might justify deferral industry 1986 46 Fed.Reg. 51386. Three later, November 1984, technology, rather additional install emission controls lines. App. 38. converting requested 1987 deadline. Id., 41. proposal 30, 50. 7 began construction facility continued operate plant. On August 1986, informing 75. Approximately year 1987, 113(b) alleging 1985 4, agency decision 53 36011. B 8 construed imposing 123-124, concluded during interval between id., 125. Because had issued noncompliance well elapsed and, court's ruling, yet make Commonwealth's GMC. 9 First Circuit reversed remanded proceedings. agreed 10 Reasoning too drastic remedy delay, court appropriate inaction those itself: compel 7604(a)(2) request pursuant reduction elimination unreasonable delay resulted prejudice. F.2d, 1067-1068. granted certiorari because disagreement Circuits take months.1 493 991, 537, 107 535 III 11 To form put place quickly, deadlines. One these submits plan. Specifically, plan." seems us refer terms, restraint 12 nevertheless claims "any . ] contends reference incorporate both procedural provision. Brief 13. 13 persuaded. "it"—that is, There no "he"—that Administrator—meet section. Petitioner's reading, moreover, makes nonsense find "has If, contends, provisions surely hearing. separate mention demonstrates simply every direction 110(a)(2); since separately we statute. 14 suffices dispose petitioner's contention, support needed, available. statute imposes upon kind insert Indeed, very next contains just approval 110(a)(3)(B) (with revisions fuel-burning stationary sources, "[t]he shall three submission"). For examples explicit 110(c)(1) (6-month imposition "plan (or thereof)"); 113(d)(2) (90-day state-issued delayed order). statutory language expressly included statute, likely intentionally omitting 110(a)(3)(A). Russello United States, 464 16, 23, 104 296, 300, 78 17 (1983) (" '[W]here includes particular omits another same generally presumed acts purposely disparate inclusion exclusion,' " quoting Wong Kim Bo, 472 720, 722 (CA5 1972)). 15 contention 110(g) EPA's provides: 16 "(1) determines— "(A) section, 18 "(B) necessary (i) prevent closing more pollution, (ii) substantial increases unemployment closing, disapproved period, Governor issue temporary emergency suspension part revised source. 19 "(2) A subsection remain effect maximum ." (Emphasis added.) 20 According petitioner, own terms "require[s]" period." Reply 7. 21 strongest claim, constrained it. not, action. merely occurred. True, presupposes "required," itself, months.2 Whatever correct interpretation 110(g)'s "required period," think passing can inflated IV 22 apply, (APA's) timeliness. APA 555(b), provides "unreasonably delayed," 706(1). concedes, must, mandate. 19-20. 23 main claim categorically violates duty period. rejected above, must consider alternative acting Without deciding unreasonable, now address claim. reveal congressional intent agree barred. 24 7413(b)(2) states: "For purposes chapter, most recent thereof, 110(a), 7410(a) ed.),] promulgated [110(c), 7410(c) implements section." 110(d), 7410(d) Both Courts pending. 731 (1975); Alcan Foil Products Division Aluminum Corp., 889 1513, 1519 (CA6 cert. pending, 89-1104; Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel 818 1077, 1084 (CA3 1987); Duquesne Light Co. EPA, 225 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 305, 698 456, 471 (1983). commentators conclusion. D. Currie, Pollution: Law Analysis 8.07, n. (Supp.1990); W. Rodgers, Law: Water 3.39(c) (1986 Supp.1988). 25 nothing authority solely cases 113(d)(10); 7413(d)(10) ed.) ("During 304 pursued owner. ."). fact similar reinforces our refusal import here. U.S., S.Ct., 300.3 26 note revision.4 appear strong deterrent bar, statute.5 Cf. Brock Pierce County, 476 253, 260, 106 1834, 1839, 90 248 (1986) ("We reluctant observe voids subsequent action, especially important rights stake. When, here, courts should assume lose power act" (footnote omitted)). decline 27 28 ordered. American Cyanamid 810 456 Even supposing, clear obligation says which, "the waiting Governor; suspends give always obliged although proposals wants exercising his prerogative 110(g). Our conclusion supported 110(g), 7410(g) discussed above. grants State's discerned, 1060, 1069, (CA1 reason add automatically unenforceable delay. existence exception indicates circumstances effect. observed, include results Massachusetts, whose interests involved brief joined asserts interest better served preserving ability Act. et al. Amici Curiae 10-12.

Category: 7