Opinion ID: 312185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the legislative schema

Text: 5 In enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Congress attempted to foster a symbiosis between two perceived needs. First, Congress wanted to preserve the basic state and local control of the design and enforcement of air pollution regulations. Besides a deference to the states, such a state role permitted more awareness of individual and local problems to be considered in formulating pollution abatement plans. 6 Second, Congress sensed that there was a rising dissatisfaction with the results being attained by the states, operating under the then existing legislation. Therefore, there was a desire for federal standards and enforcement. Further, Congress, apprised of the public concern, manifested its insistence on expedition in cleaning the air. 2 7 The result of these two conflicting strains was that Congress in the 1970 Amendments, devised a system in which certain aspects of the pollution control effort were assigned exclusively to the EPA, other aspects being entrusted to the states under federal supervision. 8 An understanding of the EPA's role in the bi-level program established by the Clean Air Act requires a brief exposition of the sections of the Act pertinent to the dispute here. Section 108 of the Act 3 mandated that within thirty days after December 31, 1970, the Administrator of the EPA was to determine which emissions into the air were pollutants, adversely affecting public health or welfare. Section 109 4 dictated that roughly contemporaneously, he was to promulgate regulations establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. 5 These standards defined the maximum concentration to be permitted in the air of any pollutant ascertained under section 108. Written comments by interested parties were to be submitted prior to the final promulgation of these standards, and following Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 462 F.2d 846 (1972), the Agency was to provide statements in support of its proposed regulations. 6 Thus, pursuant to sections 108 and 109, the Administrator was to determine the minimum acceptable level in the air of any particular pollutant. Section 110 7 defined the procedures to be followed to achieve and then maintain these or higher standards of cleanliness. Because the attainment required that choices be made between different sources of pollutants, with some sources perhaps more severely restricted than others, the Act left to the states the drafting of plans for reaching these federally established standards. More specifically, Sec. 110(a)(1) 8 required that, within nine months of the Administrator's promulgation of the ambient air standards, each state was to adopt and submit to the Administrator a plan that would bring the air quality within the state at a minimum, to the federally mandated levels. The state implementation plan was to be enacted only after reasonable notice and hearings were held by the state. Section 110 then continues: 9 The Administrator shall, within four months after the date required for submission of a plan under paragraph (1), approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof. The Administrator shall approve such plan, or any portion thereof, if he determines that it was adopted after reasonable notice and hearing. 9 10 The question of which procedures are required of the Administrator, if any, in determining whether to approve a state implementation plan as provided in Sec. 110(a)(2), forms the core of this case. 11 After approval of a state implementation plan, the regulations contained therein, presumably already enforceable by the state, 10 become enforceable by the federal government as well. Section 113 of the Act 11 provides that, after permitting a period of thirty days to pass, perhaps to allow the state to initiate an action, the Administrator, having found a violation of the implementation plan, may impose civil and criminal sanctions upon the violator. 12 This enforcement aspect of the statute is a final step in delineating the cooperating and supplementing roles that are prescribed for the states and the EPA. 12 Review by federal courts of actions taken by the Administrator is circumscribed by section 307(b)(1). 13 It provides that petitions for review of the Administrator's actions approving implementation plans are to be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate Circuit, 14 within thirty days of the date of the Administrator's approval. Subsection (2) of 307(b) 15 forecloses later litigation in enforcement proceedings of issues for which review could have been had under section 307(b)(1).