Document: 446 U.S. 578 100 S.Ct. 1889 64 L.Ed.2d 525 Adlene HARRISON, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., al. No. 78-1918. Argued Jan. 16, 1980. Decided May 27, Syllabus As authorized by the Clean Air Act (Act), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided, on basis of correspondence with respondents, that certain equipment at a power generating facility respondent PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), was subject to "new source" performance standards regarding air pollution had been promulgated EPA Administrator. then filed petition in Court Appeals for review EPA's decision under § 307(b)(1) Act, which provides direct federal court appeals locally and regionally applicable actions taken Administrator specifically enumerated provisions "any other final action [the] . is or applicable." Because its uncertainty as proper forum judicial review, also suit injunctive relief against Federal District Court, stayed pending disposition present case. The dismissed PPG's lack jurisdiction 307(b)(1). Held: phrase action" be construed accordance literal meaning so reach any final, not just similar precede catch all statute. Pp. 586-594. (a) rule ejusdem generis does apply limit those theory latter (unlike Administrator's informal here) must based administrative proceedings reflecting least notice opportunity hearing. At one require act only after hearing, thus even if were applied, it would significantly narrow ambit Moreover, an instrumentality ascertaining correct words when there uncertainty, offers no indication whatever Congress intended such limiting construction 587-589. (b) Nothing legislative history supports conclusion means anything than what says, did intend enlarge courts include cases record less 589-592. (c) argument that, matter policy, basic purpose 307(b)(1)—to provide prompt pre-enforcement action—would better served providing this district rather appeals, addressed Congress, Court. 592-594. 5 Cir., 587 F.2d 237, reversed remanded. Maryann Walsh, Washington, D. C., petitioners. Charles F. Lettow, respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 Section (Act) [the Act] (Emphasis added.)1 issue case whether Fifth Circuit concluding without entertain Conoco, (Conoco), respondents here, challenged concerning applicability operated PPG. More specifically, we decide falls within reviewable 2 * dispute underlying jurisdictional question involves 111 42 U.S.C. 7411 (1976 ed., Supp. II). That provision requires publish, from time revise, list categories stationary source he determines "causes, contributes to, may reasonably anticipated endanger public health welfare," 111(b)(1)(A), promulgate regulations establishing sources" categories, 111(b)(1)(B). defines source, modification commenced publication (or, earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing standard section will source." 111(a)(2). 3 In 1971, included "fossil fuel-fired steam generators" his sources. 36 Fed.Reg. 5931. Later year, pursuant mandate standards, established emission limits unit" more 250 million Btu's per hour heat input, August 17, date proposed. 40 CFR §§ 60.1-60.15, 60.40-60.46 (1979). These define term, unit," 60.41(a), create procedure Administrator, upon request, determine planned owner operator constitutes constitute "construction" "modification" purposes triggering standards. 60.5. 4 Sometime 1970, PPG, chemical manufacturing corporation, began planning preliminary new plant Lake Charles, La. facility, designed take advantage fuel-efficient "cogeneration" technology, consist two gas turbine generators, "waste-heat" boilers, turbogenerator. between concerns waste-heat boilers facility. This controversy first arose 1975, fuel supplier, informed Conoco switching supply natural oil. An exchange ensued, initiated request submit additional information bearing covered submissions revealed although assembly begun until 1976, itself, integral component, originally partially ordered year before On submissions, Regional Director Enforcement notified since themselves long January 14, response, took position part integrated unit, Director, nevertheless, reaffirmed initial decision. 6 Pursuant outlined regulations, 60.5 (1979), submitted formal determination (1) do type question, (2) event proposed, determined requested clarification how apply. 7 Responding letter concluded were, indeed, generators," rejected facets Thus, affirmed previous With regard manner indicated generators held accountable emissions attributable combustion fossil fuel, waste generators.2 8 Circuit, seeking boilers. complaint United States Western Louisiana. has 9 case, stem conflicting views interpretation 7607(b)(1) Before 1977, provided exclusive appropriate several Act. Actions federal-question jurisdiction, 28 1331. expanded 1977. Amendments Pub.L. 95-95, 91 Stat. 776, added exclusively both another added.) enacting Technical Conforming Amendments, 95-190, 1404, listed appeals. 10 It 307(b)(1), amended, Circuit. Despite having there, intervenor, argued could properly characterized Administrator." phrase, they argued, referred action," should read literally mean 11 fall 237. court's view "[i]f cast entire responsibility reviewing into numeration specific sections appear redundant." Id., 243. "most revealing" aspect thought, complete absence discussion "massive shift" jurisdiction. found unlikely have shift decisions simply applied interpreted Such decision, noted, often "skeletal record" leave unable perform meaningful review. Since appellate ill-suited augment record, especially compared trial tools discovery are available, "[w]hatever addition contemplated adding 'any action' language assume drafted mechanical limitations mind." F.2d, 245. Accordingly, We granted certiorari, 444 823, 43, 62 29 because importance determining locus EPA. II 12 undisputed scope Administrator," make 13 outset, note parties agreement "final term understood context Administrative Procedure law. ruling represented Short enforcement action, rendered last word matter. about "final," but amended 14 petitioners argue "final" statutory narrowly. Relying familiar doctrine generis, assert catchall statute.3 similarity discern among refer "a contemporaneously compiled record," "based hearing." "other Appeals.4 15 respondents' reliance is, think, misplaced respects. Under where general follow enumeration items, applying items akin enumerated. Applying flaw namely, 112(c) 7412(c) II), fact, recognize unlike involved case.5 16 second problem fundamental. noted: " 'The while firmly established, uncertainty.' v. Powell, 423 87, 91, 96 316, 319, 46 228, quoting Gooch States, 297 124, 128, 56 395, 397, 80 L.Ed. 522. action." When provisionin expansive now urge. think inappropriate construing Rather, agree contrary, exactly action.6 B 17 nothing support says. 18 language, appeared H.R. 6161, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977). bill, reported out House Committee Interstate Foreign Commerce, Columbia nationwide consequences nationally promulgated, taken, Act]." parallel fashion, bill regional local provisions, 19 extended amendment contained Report accompanying 6161. H.R.Rep. 95-294, pp. 323-324 discussion, however, focused venue Circuits. described amendments "intended clarify some questions relating rules orders [A]ct." 323. regard, explained: 20 "[The sentence 307(b)(1)] makes clear reviewed U. S. Columbia. 21 sentence] essentially locally, statewide, circuit locality, State, region located. Ibid. 22 further stated changes reflected Committee's proposals Conference caveat adoption these endorsement remainder Conference's recommendations. 324. 23 infer scant never But, insofar rely said Report, fail see observations Court.7 fact expressly disclaimed recommendations matters wholly irrelevant. 24 say 1977 unlikely, assert, radically divested consideration cannot accept argument. First, number comprehended doubt substantial, large ineluctably provoked comment Congress. Secondly, strange canon state committee reports elsewhere deliberations obvious face statute, cannot, Sherlock Holmes, pursue dog bark.8 C 25 finally appeals.9 agency predicated neither adjudication nor rulemaking apt too permit preferable forum, available whereas time-consuming remand might required. 26 our task ideal See, e. g., Currie & Goodman, Judicial Review Action: Quest Optimum Forum, 75 Colum.L.Rev. (1975). vested statute clearly sort here points different conclusion.10 27 add conferral irrational. most saved court, followed appeal. seriously questioned overall lost remands records inadequate exceed forgoing every court. But answer empirical recourse finds itself exercise record. situation, always consideration.11 For reasons stated, hold erred dismissing want judgment reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. 30 POWELL, concurring. 31 I continue reservations constitutionality preclusion 307(b). Adamo Wrecking Co. 434 275, 289, 98 566, 575, 54 538 (1978) (POWELL, J., concurring); ante, 592-593, n. 9. 60 days period Register still constitutionally adequate failure seek immediate bar affected challenging noticed subsequent criminal prosecution. letters, like greater protection. Although constitutional difficulties well counsel cf. Chrysler Corp. EPA, 195 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 98-100, 600 904, 912-914 (1979) (parallel Noise Control Act), possible demonstrates, intention clear. join 32 BLACKMUN, concurring result. 33 my Brother STEVENS' dissent, Court's Agency's constituted action. opaque attention received me Congress' true respect Like dissenting Brethren, find difficult believe undertake massive expansion directly palpable given thought consequences. Nonetheless, dearth evidence contrary broad inescapable. inclined, introducing limitation over determinations us. 34 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 35 effort congressional intent entrusted detective judge. rejects application traditional grounds 588, II)—i. e., 112(c), II)—does supra, 588. While "ambiguous," know additions curious incident Silver Blaze nighttime. If am this, look beyond intention. Chemehuevi Tribe Indians FPC, 420 95 1066, 43 279 limited class Administrator.1 Train, 175 115, 119, 533 1250, 1254 (1976); Utah Power Light 180 70, 72, 553 215, 217 required hearing actions. procedural requirements generally result creation susceptible required.2 Indeed, stated: "The interested persons written statement virtually assure many instances produces nature vary widely same assurance feasible." 1, 57 Thus grant pre-1977 fully comports role development factual issues record.3 37 revision during major original 120, 7420 phrase. 776. 120 depart requirement existed prior directs give adopting regulations. And gave whatsoever differed substantially character Instead suggests aimed resolving problems section, effecting appeals.4 38 done enact amendment, problematic. See infra, 601. difficulty arises so-called "technical amendments" enacted months adopted 95-140, 1404. purportedly made substantive earlier amendments.5 They nonetheless altered specifying four trigger appeals: 111(j), 7411(j) II); 113(d), 7413(d) 7419 maintains already sections, view, leads technical largely meaningless authority. previously presenting amendments, Senator Muskie "necessary errors unclear phrases." 123 Cong.Rec. 36252 (1977) (emphasis added); 4, supra. coupled Muskie's them, paradox attempting ascertain intention: their advance billing, entirely unnecessary includes sections. interpretation, again purpose, important 307(b)(1).6 attempts, unsuccessfully, address footnote, acknowledges "unnecessary." question: merely restates it. adds observation "[t]his true, remains necessity provisions." Ante, 589, 6. 39 absent creating approach quite wrought thoroughly inconsistent courts. adopt whatsoever. sketchy indicates considered principal effect change recommended Conference. far substantial according sub silentio. remarks adopted, time, sufficiently perplexing shed light though labeled accurately viewed controlling interpreting enactment. Lines, McMann, 192, 200, 7, 444, 448, 402 acquainted significance urged likely looked minor sensible way interpret reference enacted, added. added, generis. ordinarily "limits terms ones specified." 522 (1936). rests notion statutes "sense best harmonizes end view." comments preceded it—a distinguished here. principle refers types satisfactory explanation us, sweeping relatively unorthodox judges detectives watchdog bark night. 41 STEVENS, From 1976 through June exchanged series letters various officials La., plant. meet first, them effective and, second, category sources apply.1 April 60.5(a), definitive issues. 60.5(a) raised PPG,2 apparently arguments her unequivocally stating question. 44 After few "clarifying" exchanged, brought separate petitions determination, filing Louisiana ground had, all, 45 There us today: so, holding used persuaded Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 149-156, 87 1507, 1515-1519, 681, set three tests order ripe involve purely legal Second, agency's tentative subordinate official. Finally, party faced serious hardship allowed obtain third satisfied companies either expend amounts money comply regulation risk civil penalties. 47 advice personnel react particular circumstances tests, seem exception. argues, decided facts herself signed rejecting position; thus, appears be, suggests, "last word" issue. 586.3 finally, magnitude estimated compliance costs, sizeable penalties 7413(b), (c), II) challenge proceedings.4 48 Assuming APA, compelled REHNQUIST greatly increase burdens currently borne numbers presented.5 596-597, 600-601. distort concept giving unlimited discretion transform advise appeals' 49 307(b)(2) proceeding, actually sought.6 Register. publish embarking program so.7 benefit preclusive 307(b)(2), incentive wide range 50 Once published Register, Most would, one, concern applications situations. very indicate policy. aggrieved person show entitling him mere publication, raise foreclose future entirely.8 51 highly undesirable share REHNQUIST's construe drawing line short allowing turn chooses 52 mandates subsections Those contain grants authority determinations. 110 111(d), 7410 7411(d) empower approve implementation plans; 113(d) 7411(j), 7412(c), (and necessary implication deny) waivers standards; sets up assess noncompliance penalties, Each impact rights party. 53 By contrast, not, party's status; permits advice. own procedures, formalized manner. cover "agency making chapter," thinking directed plain language. supported apparent belief extending accustomed publishing respectfully dissent. full: "A promulgating national primary secondary ambient quality standard, 112, 111, 202 (other prescribed 202(b)(1) ), 202(b)(5), control prohibition 211, 231, issued 113, A approving plan 119(c)(2)(A), (B), (C) (as enactment 1977) thereunder, (including denial disapproval title I) circuit. Notwithstanding preceding taking publishes determination. Any subsection shall sixty promulgation, approval, except solely arising sixtieth day, arise." 84 1708, clarification, expressed understanding normal course operation periods operating 100% fuel. confirmed understanding. position, cases. representative telephone incorrect. letter, Division Stationary Source reiterated extent heat. operate times containing specified content sulfur. He noted install opacity monitors stacks alternative monitoring tests. abandoned advanced Appeals, phase, construction, correctly modified "under sections," Act." free doubt. Appeals' can test turns case-by-case inquiry adequacy acknowledge, reading excessive exception ignored governs "hazardous pollutants" wanted "special review" procedures requiring applicable, fit theory. objections none persuasive. internally internal inconsistency arise nullify express "standard 202(b)(1)." effectively repeal 206(b)(2)(B), 7525(b)(2)(B) mark, obviously unnecessary, read, urge, provisions. evident (e. carry nonattainment policy 117 Act). concede, expand issue, silent. Arthur Conan Doyle, Blaze, Complete Holmes (1938). violate due process interrelationship companion provision, "[a]ction obtained [§ enforcement." 7607(b)(2) To preclude defendant proceeding attacking validity defendant's right "reasonable heard evidence." Yakus 321 414, 433, 660, 671, 88 834. must, therefore, await day. opinions modify post, 600-602, expressly, impliedly, 607. readings Whether determine. provided: 202(b)(1)), 231 111(d) promulgation approval ." 91-604, 1708. inserted Senate, S.4358, 91st 2d Sess., 308 (1970), "specify forums [EPA] Secretary H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 91-1783, p. U.S.Code Cong. Admin. News 5356, 5389. comparable provision. 1974, "regulations thereunder" 93-319, 259. Senate debates Cooper on-the-record relevant achieve sound interests protected. developed Secretary, unbiased, independent institution, quality." 116 33117 (1970). "Direct adjudications practice: judged need trial, resort court." Currie, Pollution Laws, Iowa L.Rev. 1221, 1232 added). 5-6 states act." H.R.Rep.No. 323 "[i]n subsection, measure portion recommendation 305.76-4(A), [41 56768 (1976)], deals venue," "incorporates D2 petitioning appeals." endorse recommendations, ibid., expanding eliminating 202(b)(1), 7521(b)(1) explaining "[i]t re-open continued, "[o]nly phrases retained package Senate." And, 111(j) 119(a) denying waiver proceedings, 119(a), deny nonferrous smelter Title provides: "When operator, reconstruction) commencement thereof part." relies factor, along "final." place much parties' agreement, common interest threshold resolved affirmative. serves treat wants soon possible. broadening increases 605. National Automatic Laundry Cleaning Council Shultz, 143 274, 281, 443 281 (1971), Wage-Hour Fair Labor Standards led liability double damages employees. West Penn 302, 310-311 (CA3 1975), cert. denied, 426 947, 3165, 1183; 317-319 (Adams, dissenting), refused consider violation despite severe attached noncompliance. (an differ), involving "record" relied minimal. "Action paragraph brief each takes, practice. yet complying obligation, begin near amendments. Brief Respondents 77-2989 (CA 5), 27-29. clause seems backwards me. plausible course, becomes circular, unless finality circumstances, emulate ignoring component position.

Category: 7