Document: 434 U.S. 275 98 S.Ct. 566 54 L.Ed.2d 538 ADAMO WRECKING CO., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 76-911. Argued Oct. 11, 1977. Decided Jan. 10, 1978. Syllabus The Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate "emission standards" for hazardous air pollutants. emission an pollutant in violation applicable standard is prohibited by § 112(c)(1)(B), knowing which made a criminal offense 113(c)(1)(C). Section 307(b)(1) provides that petition review Administrator's action p omulgating may be filed only Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit, and under 307(b)(2) such not subject judicial civil or enforcement proceeding. Petitioner was indicted violating 112(c)(1)(B) allegedly having failed while demolishing building comply with EPA regulation captioned "National Emission Standard Asbestos" specifying certain procedure "work practice" followed demolition buildings containing asbestos but limiting emissions occur during demolition. Court, finding cited standard" within meaning 112(c), granted petitioner's motion dismiss indictment. reversed, holding 307(b) precluded petitioner from questioning proceeding whether ostensibly promulgated 112(c) fact standard. Held : 1. A defendant charged assert defense whose he as Congress contemplated when it used term even though has previously been subjected procedure. Such does relieve Government duty proving, prosecution 113(c)(1)(C) violated standard," federal court brought determine alleged have Act's meaning. From totality statutory scheme, dealt more leniently, either terms liability, notice, available defenses, other infractions orders, but, contrast, attached stringent sanctions standards," clear intended limit regulations type did intend empower make his mere designation. Yakus v. United States, 321 414, 64 660, 88 L.Ed. 834, distinguished. Pp. 278-285. 2. err 112 itself distinguishes between standards techniques achieving those standards, language 112(b)(1)(B) clearly supports conclusion quantitative on emissions, work-practice Recent amendments fortify conclusion. 285-289. 6 Cir., 545 F.2d 1, reversed. Stanley M. Lipnick, Chicago, petitioner. Frank H. Easterbrook, Washington, D. C., respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 pollutants "at level judgment ample margin safety protect public health." 112(b)(1)(B), 84 Stat. 1685, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7(b)(1)(B). Act, 1857c-7(c)(1)(B). latter section, turn, subjects violator fine imprisonment provisions 1857c-8(c)(1)(C) (1970 ed., Supp. V). final piece this puzzle 1708, 1857h-5(b) V), pertinent part: 2 "(1) promulgating . any ection States Columbia. Any shall 30 days date promulgation, approval, after if based solely grounds arising 30th day. 3 "(2) Action respect could obtained paragraph (1) proceedings enforcement." 4 It legislative matrix present arose. 5 Eastern Michigan 112(c)(1)(B). indictment petitioner, engaged Detroit, 40 CFR 61.22(d)(2)(i) (1975). That regulation, described its caption Asbestos," specifies procedures connection demolitions, course ground no necessary establish liability 113(c)(1)(C), had alleged, because 112(c). Sixth Circuit (1976), We certiorari, 430 953, 97 1596, 51 802 (1977), we now reverse. * do light difficult question interpretation say basic case phrased: "When standard?" contends, agreed, preclusion exclusivity prevented obtaining "judicial review" proceeding, nonetheless entitled claim administrative actually at all. took contrary view. held designated however different content might what authorized promulgation sufficient support charge upon unless set aside appropriate commenced pursuant 307(b). 7 relied heavily 834 (1944), context require validity regulatory challenged particular time, case, however, decide one. Because expressly applies must still inquire Government's underlying assumption designation foreclose further inquiry Act. For reasons hereafter stated, hold one respondent who defend contemplation employed term, reviewed II 8 In resolving question, think are far less favorable position than were Emergency Price Control considered Yakus. broad statute gave evidence congressional intent actions taken purported authority sections should Appeals. Nothing called our attention would lead us disagree description Act: 9 "Review price control centralized giving 'exclusive' jurisdiction all non-constitutional challenges regulations. difficulty construing precluding attack (321 U.S., 430-431, 660), explicitly mention cases." Brief 18. 10 This relatively simple scheme contrasts complex interrelationship imposition actions. basis Subchapter I brought, 113(c)(1), 1687, amended, 1857c-8(c)(1) ed. V): 11 "(c)(1) person knowingly— 12 "(A) violates requirement implementation plan (i) period Federally assumed enforcement, (ii) notified subsection (a)(1) requirement, 13 "(B) fails refuses order issued (a), 14 "(C) section 111(e), 119(g) 15 "shall punished $25,000 per day violation, year, both. If conviction committed first paragraph, punishment $50,000 two years, both." 16 Each three separate subsections quoted creates offenses. them, (A), deals violations plans receipt notice violation. Under 307(b)(1), approving restricted "in circuit." But provide itself. 17 Subsection (C), discuss before turning (B), penalties 1684, 1857c-6(e), prohibits operation new stationary sources "standards performance" Administrator; case; 119(g), 254, 1857c-10(g) V),1 requires compliance assortment requirements, out detail below. 111, are, reviewable exclusively Circuit. However, subs ctions (C) 119(c)(2), required 119(g)(2), Those define issue extensions regard various pollution requirements. preclusive prohibit these both proceedings. restrictive apply 119(g); offenses, invalidity raised extent allowable absence restrictions. 18 Finally, (B) 113(c)(1) "any knowingly (a)." empowers orders requiring compliance, provided (A) also recordkeeping inspection requirements 114, 1857c-9 ordinarily 113(b)(4). again 113(a) 114. likely Administrative Procedure 701 et seq., infirmity them same provision 307(b)(2). III 19 draw excursion into complexities several. First, chosen prescribe every rule, Administrator. Second, Congress, expected, imposed wider range liability. Third, where Administrator, uniformly challenge Fourth, although applied approved 113(c)(1)(A) plans, required, normal circumstances, continue sanction imposed. 20 These conclusions way detract brought. Indeed, heighten importance determining meant since most Not prior condition liability.2 Since chose attach standard, contrast kinds crucial conclusive character. 21 stringency penalty lends substance contention envisioned spoke standard." suggests peculiar standards." Unlike situation Yakus, singled violators generic form asserting defenses asserted All leads conclude intended, limits, type, manner Humpty Dumpty Through Looking-Glass, 22 307(b)(2), Here, properly undertook resolve issue. so doing, undermine twin purposes insuring substantive interpreted circumstances adoption quickly single intimately familiar procedures. presume judge wisdom consider adequacy led merely concluded standard.3 23 sum, survey compel agreement prosecution. At very least, said bject some doubt. adhere rule that, "where there ambiguity statute, doubts resolved favor defendant." Bass, 404 336, 348, 92 515, 523, 488 (1971). Cf. Rewis 401 808, 812, 91 1056, 1059, 28 493 24 conclude, therefore, aware possible dangers flow interpretation; district courts will importuned, guise making determination engage they do. narrow addressed complied arbitrary, capricious, supported record. Nor pursue inquiries arise face limits term. IV 25 remains seen reached correct here question. given substantial indication utilized standards. 112(c)(1)(B)(ii), empowered temporarily exempt facilities burden "if finds installation controls." specified President, 112(c)(2), power, technology implement available." 112(b)(2) information "pollution techniques." 26 Most supportive 112(b)(1)(B): "The health pollutant." (Emphasis added.) lend force "level" attained use "techniques," "controls," "technology." fortified recent "design, equipment, work practice, operational "it feasible enforce Amendments 1977, Pub.L. 95-95, 110, 703.4 27 distinction, endorsed practice appears own account development regulation. Although contended just another history demonstrates regulate practices became emissions. originally proposed visible demolitions. 36 Fed.Reg. 23242 adopting "that repair many situations, impracticable, impossible, without creating emissions." 38 8821 (1973). Therefore "specif[y] practices" instead. Ibid. concedes 1977 Amendments, ambiguous classified argues defer construction Act.5 32, n. 22. While deference entirely ordinary tend undercut construction. Senate Report reiterated "strong preference numerical limitations," addition 112(e) allow few limited S.Rep.No.95-127, p. 44 (1977). Committee agreed authorize involved here, refrained endorsing view distinction drawn practically forecloses inference. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. FCC, 395 367, 380-381, 89 1794, 1801-1802, 371 (1969). 29 foregoing reasons, Court's dismissing therefore proper, Reversed. 31 POWELL, concurring. 32 constitutional merited serious consideration. filing No afforded party publication Federal Register.1 similar thought decision effectively foreclosed due process case. 33 express judgment, least arguably distinguishable. came World War II, can viewed valid exercise war powers Art. I, 8, Constitution. Chief Stone free ambiguity, emphasizing controls "war emergency measure." argued upheld Congress. O.T. 1943, 374, 35. As important environmental concerns country, comparable—in justifying shortcutting rights—to need national mobilization wartime economic well military activity. 34 30-day limitation afford precariously little time affected persons adequate method afforded. totally unrealistic assume fraction entities regulation—especially small contractors scattered across country—would knowledge familiarity access Register. following apparently concerned Rutledge's eloquent dissent. amended onerous features Act.2 35 join understanding implies STEWART, whom BRENNAN BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 37 "petition 112" promulgation. "[a]ction Despite unambiguous provisions, holds sometimes. tampering plain threatens destroy effectiveness unified expedited established respectfully today allows trial Congress—is nothing acted beyond authority. part agency action. 706(2)(C); see Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 402, 415, 814, 823, 136. And precisely Administrator" has, forbidden u dertake. There slightest providing courts. To contrary, ordained actions" controlled 307. S.Rep.No.91-1196, 41 (1970) (emphasis supplied). 39 conspicuously frustrates speedy system concludes proscribed §§ standard[s]" generally. follows courts, general despite expressed centralize thus invites sort inconsistent determinations sought prevent, flies purpose "to maintain integrity sequences throughout Act." 41. real guidance aspects critical fall outside scope exclusive example, relate "hazardous pollutant," "an mandates seem statutorily supposed form. Are issues these, proceedings? allowed camel's nose tent, fear rest camel almost follow. believe included barred raising case.* STEVENS, 43 reason "the liability," ante, 283, pollutant" substances category pose especially grave threat human health. why avoid deny poisonous effectively. frame cannot measured numerically. reason, simultaneously commanded him (a) establishing enforcing (b) never kind except framed terms, impossible task. 45 1970 history, compels crippling On am persuaded legitimate; (2) doubtful, nevertheless reasonable governing statute; (3) fairly read, clarified pre-existing authority; (4) reading current anomalous rules, promulgated, unenforceable. Accordingly, agree Parts opinion, accept Part IV's disposition case.1 46 accused insulation fireproofing large watered down demolished.2 effect curtail quantity emitted open neither nor "standard" 112(b)(1) Act.3 compelled word "standard"4 Congress' expectation normally terms; contains always language. simply 112(b), directs adopt pollutants, 47 extraordinarily toxic Only substances, including asbestos, pollutants" 112.5 112, ordered identify waiting develop their own. Thus, markedly leisurely decentralized setting ambient standards.6 gravely about character drafted 112.7 fact, covered willingness prospect plant closings: mean, effectively, close techniques. include measurable emissions."8 48 accord expectation, promptly listed pollutant,9 published proposed, activities, commercial apartment buildings.10 49 total prohibition adopted, unquestionably conformed mandate. industry convinced proposal prevent building.11 hearings demonstrated inevitably causes particulate and, further, measured. instead severe zero emissions—which put entire business adopted reduce prohibiting it. long detailed explanation indicates anyone questioned standard.12 50 consistent intent. indicated standards.13 hardships caused. choice extremes closing imposing pollutant; overriding interest using able demonstrate drastic technique available,14 health.15 Admittedly, foresee dilemma precision. unique circumstance. See, e. g., Mourning Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 356, 372-373, 93 1652, 1662-1663, 318. interstitial lawmaking ramification laws this.16 solution faithful misused power unnecessarily demolished industry. 52 precise presented whether, initial matter, 112. Rather, answer "sufficiently accepted reviewing courts." Train Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 60, 75, 95 1470, 1480, 731. 53 primary responsibility carrying f us. Contrary implication, 287, "instead" He unambiguously proper standard.17 province, lightly judgment. faced problem construction, shows great officers administration. 'To sustain Commission's application find one, result arisen instance proceedings.' " Udall Tallman, 380 16, 85 792, 801, 616.18 55 began weeks 112's enactment. wise teaching Cardozo, Norwegian Nitrogen 288 294, 350, 77 796, directly pertinent. observed "practice weight involves contemporaneous men machinery motion; parts efficiently smoothly yet untried new." Id., 315, S.Ct., 358. 56 well-established doctrines "ordinary circumstances." Ante, 288. understand rules cons ruction unusual seems me extraordinary regulating fair effective additional respecting reliance doctrine, rather reaching authority.19 57 view, enactment circumstance justifies departure settled principles. takes novel ignored produce explicit endorsement my places unwise accorded administrators' interpretations statutes enforce. misreads Amendments. 58 ultimately rests Even accepting dubious premise rely 95th tell 93d mind, statute. 59 instructive. late 1974, several wrecking companies successfully indictments against Northern Illinois wetting requirements.20 Six ruling, amendment confirm design, limitations feasible.21 major bill amend 94th House unable agree. revision. requested authorization. S.Rep. 95-127, 163. indicate Senators decisions incorrect. 44. introduced Senate, species standard."22 60 When emerged conference, longer stated change unlikely Conference indirect disapproval explained "clarify" aspect version unrelated is, standard.23 61 relevant lesson learned history: soon someone sort, power. notes, preferred standards; last resort. instituted becoming practicable. 62 true, says, "refrained 112(c)." 289. equally true criticizing short, sheds original persuasively focused latent regarded implicit written.24 63 confirms been, today, unenforceable, unenforceable anew forth treats separately them. 112(b) gives Presumably sections. enforced affect recognize continues permit well, 65 Ironically, lift cloud over authority, ineffectual. consequence risks substitutes Moreover, avoided recognizing 66 affirm 119, inception prosecution, lately replaced 113(d). 705. severity accentuated innumerable businesses, themselves arbitrary daily perusal Register immediate initiation litigation interests. preliminary analysis hardly unique. Term, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Train, 965, 204 examination Water Pollution there: "If 'effluent limitation[s] 301,' 304 guidelines, suit probably anywhere. intertwined EPA's regulations". 124-125, 973. conducted careful analysis, concluding "effluent 383 F.Supp. 1244 (WDVa.1974), aff'd, 528 1136 (CA 1975), oral argument, confirmed enough governed 112," cover 112." Pub.L.No. 95-190, 14(a)(79), 1404. STEVENS' dissent post, 306, recognition Our Brother STEVENS quite correctly points out, 302, 'contemporaneous construction' considerable weight, contain, uses later bears noting, implication them; denominated standards"; undoubtedly inference each comments accompanying give authorizing See 8820-8822, 8829-8830 (1973); 23239-23240, lack specific authorization pronouncement Skidmore Swift Co., 323 134, 140, 161, 164, 124 factor ruling thoroughness evident consideration, reasoning, consistency earlier pronouncements, factors persuade, lacking control." remarks carefully methods controlling [his] reasoning" definition. speculate conclusion, concomitant exegesis doing so, obviously lacks "power persuade" existence By Wage Hour Gemsco, Inc. Walling, 324 244, 605, 921 (1945), referred dissenting 299-300, industrial homework 8(f) Fair Labor Standards 1065. circumvention evasion" 8(f), specifically found 'furnishe[d] ready means circumventing evading minimum wage Industry.' 250, 9, 609, 9. offered comparable 731 (1975), dissent, "a sentence Register," 301 18, "analysis structure Amendments," 86, 1485, practice. unexplained noted 4, supra, easily done so. remarks, 305-306, 24, responded advised deficiency then suggest presently exists piecemeal approach displays "thoroughness consideration," Skidmore, expect publish hearing promulgated. assurance come thousands actual will. Neither realistic follow participate hearing. 460, 684 (Rutledge, J., dissenting); 638-640, amending 1942, 23; L. Jaffe Judicial 451 (1965). occasion any, Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment imposes qualify STEWART's explain test precludes Circuit; "action" unarticulated 307(b), provides, "(i) Friable materials, insulate fireproof boiler, pipe, load-supporting structural member, wetted removed building, structure, facility, members commenced. friable debris adequately insure wet stages related handling operations." provides: shall, 90 1970, (and thereafter revise) list includes intends section. Within 180 inclusion list, together thirty days. publication, pollutant, finds, hearings, pollutant. become promulgation." 1857c-7(b)(1). semantic describe watered-down identified "watered Benton Maryland, 784, 2056, 707. Compare 1857c-7, 109 1857c-4 1857c-5 National Quality S.Rep.No. 91-1196, (1970). statement written summary conference Senator Muskie Report. Summary Provisions Agreement reprinted Committees Public Works, Legislative History Cong., 2d Sess., 133 (Comm.Print 1974). id., 150. 5931 pollutants—asbestos, beryllium, mercury—listed March 29, 1971, history. investigation fully suspicion intolerably dangerous Among risks, low-level intermittent exposure cause cancer years event. 8820 usually workers killed woman contact washing workclothes her children, worked company. Horvitz, Asbestos Its Impact, Affairs 145, 146 (1974). "(d) Visible tmosphere matter resulting single-family dwelling prohibited." explained: material dwelling. Comments structures. covers institutional, industrial, structures, houses four units, contain material." An untimely dismissed merits. Dore Wrecking Fri, 73-1686 (CADC, Aug. 1973). raise businesses. company prosecuted individually promising future jobs. company's response named location, where, according indictment, subsequently believed too frequent resort equipment specifications discourage private market's pursuit economic, acceptable apply." 17. states "could text supra. closings alternative techni ues—including rules—can safety. expressing modest mandate achieve protection disruption. "[T]he determined man-made atmosphere, 921, much substitute surely expected terms. decided ban wage. continue, concluded, readily evade lacked homework, action, saying: disputed. employee covered. questioned. Yet deprive effective. dead letter answer. ways, necessity self-nullification enough. reinforce necessity's teaching. 8(d) 'carry effect' committee's recommendations. commands 'such conditions' 'finds carry out' purposes. command moreover, reinforced operative, short abuse discretion execute it." 254-255, 612. demanded carried cost Nation. Furthermore, functions chapter." 301, 1857g(a). consistently standard: structures .. commencement demolition." dealing deferred Administrator: "Without going Agency's permissibly sufficiently 1479, McLaren Fleischer, 256 477, 480-481, 577, 578, 1052. rejects "mere regulation" persuade. 5. judicial-style opinions accompany interpretations. rejected it, 72, 1478, "supported" 22398, 22405 "own 'analysis history,' 5, answering reasonable" permissible. 1479. Similarly, formally justified court. 311, 314-315, usual Here asbestos-wetting prompt appellate challenges. wanted speedy, uniform, attempt nationwide basis, collateral meaningless. Of course, take advantage "deeming" characterization challenged, try assuming product "Humpty Dumpty" process. 283. 74 CR 755 (Dec. 20, 1974); Nardi 756 (Jan. 2, 1975); Harvey 758 7, Brandenburg Demolition, 757 31, 1975). Letter Works Chairman supporting (Feb. 3, excerpted App.C. provided, "(e) determines because, through conveyance designed constructed emit capture pollutants." 163 characterized follows: "Amends existing law specify source measure devices H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 95-564, 131 (1977); U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1512. terms: concurs clarify design Federal, State local minor clarifying modifications language." 131-132, buttressed 286 4. argument Members pointed suggested words reading. Tr. Oral Arg. 20. October 11. November technical-amendments Houses "ambiguous language" "technical problems" 123 Rec. S18372 (Nov. 1977) (statement Sen. Muskie); H11953 (reading H.Res. 885). bill, pas ed signed treated error. misreadings provision, 7607(b)(1) (1976 I), recodified Safe Drinking 1399 added). presence corrected. patiently correcting errors narrowly.

Category: 7