Opinion ID: 445224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with the statutory design

Text: 36 The absence of implied revocation authority suggests a straightforward relationship between sections 211(c) and 211(f) which is consistent with the text of the statute and its apparent design: 61 section 211(f) forbids the first introduction of new fuels and new fuel additives into commerce; section 211(c) provides for regulation of fuels already in commerce. 37 Section 211(f)(1) on its face governs every fuel or fuel additive ... first introduce[d] into commerce or whose concentration in any fuel or fuel additive is increased. 62 Waivers of this prohibition under section 211(f)(4) are required only of these same fuels and fuel additives. 38 By way of comparison, section 211(c) authorizes the Administrator to control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive in order to reduce harmful air pollution and to maintain the performance of emission control equipment. 63 Construing section 211(f) not to authorize revocation of waivers thus leaves no lacuna in the statute: The Administrator is empowered to take action against an offending fuel or fuel additive under section 211(c) if it impairs the performance of pollution control equipment, which is precisely the evil an implied revocation authority would remedy. 39 Furthermore, our unwillingness to imply revocation authority under section 211(f) is consistent with subsection (f)(4)'s requirement that the Administrator act on a waiver application within 180 days or be deemed to have granted the same. 64 The implication of a standardless revocation authority, exercisable over an indefinite term, would in effect empower the Administrator to deny a waiver after the 180-day period had elapsed, thereby writing the 180-day time limit out of the statute. This revocation power would be exercised, moreover, without regard for the substantive and procedural safeguards afforded by section 211(c)--safeguards which the EPA concedes are applicable to fuels waived into commerce by default by virtue of the paragraph in the Senate Committee Report quoted above. 65 The text and design of section 211 thus support our conclusion that Congress did not authorize the EPA Administrator to revoke waivers granted under section 211(f). 40