Document: 421 U.S. 60 95 S.Ct. 1470 43 L.Ed.2d 731 Russell E. TRAIN, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Petitioners,v.NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., al. No. 73—1742. Argued Jan. 15, 1975. Decided April 16, Syllabus Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, which establish a program for controlling air pollution, Agency (EPA) is required to set 'ambient air' quality standards which, in EPA's judgment, are 'requisite protect public health,' § 109(b)(1) ('primary' standards), and welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with presence such pollutant ambient air,' 109(b)(2) ('secondary' standards). Each State after promulgation these must submit an implementing maintenance plan, be approved by EPA, if, inter alia, it meets eight general conditions forth 110(a)(2), principal one that plan provide attainment national primary 'as expeditiously as practicable' but no later than three years date plan' approval. 110(a)(2)(A). The State's include emission limitations, schedules, compliance timetables, other measures insuring timely subsequent standards. In order develop requisite within statutory deadline, Georgia elected follow EPA-endorsed approach providing immediately effective categorical limitations accompanied, however, variance procedure whereby particular sources could obtain individually tailored relief requirements. Section 110(a)(3) provides EPA shall approve 'revision' implementation 110(a)(2) requirements applicable original concluding provision permits grant individual variances meeting generally standards, both before date, plan. Respondents initiated review proceedings Court Appeals, taking position may only if they meet much more stringent procedural substantive 110(f), upon application prior stationary source class moving sources, 'postponements' year requirement subject specified conditions. That court upheld respondents' contentions ordered disapprove Georgia's provision. Held: construction Act permitting treatment state 'revisions,' under 110(a)(3), plans will not interfere rather was sufficiently reasonable preclude Appeals substituting its judgment EPA. Pp. 75-99. (a) 110(f) safety valve accorded, certain carefully circumstances, exceptions mandatory deadlines and, contrary contention, does constitute sole mechanism plan's obtained. 78-84. (b) This concept 110(f)'s limited role reinforced comparison 110(e), two-year extension three-year period referred 110(a)(2)(A)(i) on showing far less one-year postponement, would inexplicable were modify their initial formulations limitations. 84-86 (c) Noting postponement granted respect 'any source' comply plan,' reached erroneous conclusion exclusive; language mandate all modifications necessarily treated postponements, precluding forms relief. 87-88. (d) also erred 'a revision change requirement,' whereas 'postponement variance' deals parties, here being revised quite detailed; moreover, court's analysis overlooks obvious distinctions between revisions postponements context. 88-90. (e) comport 110(a)(2)(A) attained practicable thereafter maintained, so 'technology forcing' nature reason judging qualify approval 110(a)(3). P. 90-91. (f) Congress felt feasibly reliably perform measurement predictive functions necessary pass 91-94. (g) Respondents' argument because delay beyond what previously considered earliest requires soon practicable, therefore supported legislative history otherwise. 94-97. (h) based 110(a)(2)(H), authority changes 'accelerate abatement attain greater concert goals,' specious. provision, impose minimum capable basic goal cleansing extent health, possible period, prevent ameliorative goal. 97-98. 489 F.2d 390, reversed remanded. Gerald Norton, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Richard Ayres, respondents. Max N. Edwards John Hardin Young, American Iron Steel Institute amicus curiae. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 We certiorari this case, 419 823, 39, 42 46 (1974), Fifth Circuit petitioner Administrator portion submitted him pursuant 1970.1 case presents issue illuminated anatomy statute itself, history, congressional efforts control pollution. 2 * initially responded problem pollution offering encouragement assistance States. 1955 Surgeon General authorized study support research, training, demonstration projects, technical local governments attempting abate 69 Stat. 322. 1960 directed focus his attention health hazards resulting motor vehicle emissions. Pub.L. 86—493, 74 162. 1963, 77 392, federal authorities expand research efforts, make grants agencies, intervene directly interstate circumstances. 1965, 101, 79 992, 1966, 80 954, broadened emissions agencies. 3 shifted somewhat Quality 1967, 81 485. It reiterated premise earlier 'that prevention at responsibility governments.' Ibid. Its provisions, increased according powers supervision enforcement. But retained wide latitude determine time do so. 4 response manifestations increasing concern disappointing. Even planning 1967 had made little progress. reacted stick form 91—604, 84 1676, enacted December 31 year. These sharply continuing effort combat Nonetheless, explicitly preserved principle: 'Each have assuring entire geographic area comprising . ..' 107(a) Act, added, 1678, U.S.C. 1857c—2(a). difference longer given choice whether responsibility. For first time. 5 30 days enactment should publish proposed regulations describing statute's term outdoor used public. After allowing 90 comments then obliged promulgate 109(a)(1) 1679, 1857c—4(c)(1). two types: 'primary' 109(b)(1), 'secondary' those air.' 109(b)(2). 6 Within nine months Agency's secondary each 50 designed implement maintain boundaries. 110(a)(1) 1680, 1857c—5(a)(1). turn four deadline submission, been adopted hearings satisfied 110(a)(2).2 Probably conditions, heart 1970 Amendments, plan.' attainment, 'emission timetables limitations'; contain insure 110(a)(2)(B). 7 Although itself newly organized, looked guidance formulating submit. On 7, 1971—scarcely Amendments—the published guidelines preparation, adoption, submission plans. 36 Fed.Reg. 6680. receiving numerous comments, including respondent Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), issued final August 14, 1971, 1586. See 40 CFR Part 51 (1974). themselves promulgated 30, 8186. 8 No can doubt imposed comprehensive task magnitude accomplished relatively short States, realized nine-month focused determining true even though until normally arose how often without substantial investment, applied during date. 9 One Florida, take effect approach, enforcement actions preattainment put notice eventually comply.3 Since Florida basically require reductions part might able them,4 encouraged alternative approach. effective. State, 10 chose preferred approach.5 provided incorporated Ga.Code Ann. 88 912 (1971),6 bases successfully challenged respondents Appeals. aspect decision petitioned certiorari. II 11 interpretation 110(a)(3),7 concluded long cause fail 110(a)(2). section requires, some consequence sought extends If not, practical treating freely. 12 plans, §§ 51.6(c), 51.32(f) (1973).8 spokesman NRDC stated guideline regard 'correctly threaten standard plan,'9 organization developed second thoughts matter. present position, joined another environmental who reside affected regions Georgia, 110(f).10 discussed below. 13 agreed respondents, although did specify thereby violated.11 held while available method reaching rejected petitioners' suggestion 'postponement' depended affect standard, many. 14 Other Circuits confronted issue, none has differed Circuit. Council v. 478 875 (CA1 1973). reasons discussed, infra, 91-94, First basis procedure. nonetheless reasoned: 15 'We see value strict now, exemptions practicability warrants; otherwise forced adopt accommodate who, notwithstanding yet unable comply. 16 'The sees power allow exemption procedures deriving (110)(a)(3). tend view adjunct scheme, anticipates flexibility period.' F.2d, 887. 17 Circuit's resolution, described 'Solomonesque,' tied specific Act. Rather, candidly judicial cration creators, inferred intended provide. Two subsequently followed 483 690, 693—694 (CA8 1973); National 494 519, 523 (CA2 1974). Neither expanded reasoning. 18 Ninth third question, 507 905, 911—917 considering intend exclusive variances. revisions, explain rejection interpretation. scheme.' explained: 19 'As we discern intent commit state, toto, whatsoever.' 913. 20 Circuit, distinction postattainment periods. strong before, especially light Act's stricter standards.12 thus differs Agency's, reaches same result authorization 21 Courts First, Eighth, Fifth, Second spoken, modified thenunanimous rulings obtaining variance. 39 34533—34535, adding 51.11(g), 51.15(d) revising 51.32(f). At time, formally disapproved provisions extending dates, unless met. 34535, 52.26. 22 Because conformed decisions Circuits, facts now validity insofar authorizes July 1975.13 abandoned Moreover, candid admitting base our 23 disparity among strongly indicates question admit easy answer. Without going hold permissibly adopted, conclude very least accepted reviewing courts. III 24 Both sections controversy contained 110 amended entitled 'Implementation Plans.' pertinent part: 25 '(A) region he determines paragraph (2) hearings.' provides: 26 '(1) Prior Governor applies apply postpone applicability (or class) that— 27 good faith 28 '(B) technology methods sufficient 29 '(C) operating interim reduced reduce impact '(D) continued operation essential security welfare, 'then requirement.'14 32 As noted, contend 'variances' sources—for example, factory 110(f). apparent text year, compliance, determination source's 'is welfare.' Petitioners, hand, rely contention implicate readily situations: first, where defer date;15 second, great incorporating maintenance. conducted conducts hearings. 33 There considerable importance attached matter, it, neither thereafter. merely operator believes circumstances justify broader retain significant degree manner once or, arrived. To Congress' intent, consider context particularly distinguish 34 already deal air, fixed nationwide levels health. complying limitations,' composition substances emitted into plants, service stations, like. They rules operators subject, enforced 35 plainly charged setting Just plainly, relegated process enforcing specific, source-by-source met.16 satisfies section's gives wisdom choices devise own fails 110(c). Thus, ultimate liberty whatever mix deems best suited situation. division responsibilities concerns devising promulgating do, deny approved. Yet 110(a), following paragraphs file them satisfy broad criteria, 'approve 'determines requirements' face, revision, either breadth applicability, date; rather, condition Far evincing assume approved, appearances developing policy most desirable restricting total level consistent 37 challenge characterization principally obtained, Were accurate description agree asserted Agency. Like Circuit,17 believe serves function different supervising 38 view, themselves. suggested became House version Amendment, H.R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., significantly, Senate bill, S. 4358, appears 110(a) (2), predecessor predecessor18 permitted governor petition three-judge district 'relief effect' expiration persons, similar appearing when deferral sought.19 Conference Committee Senate's issue. report states: conference substitute follows amendment establishing leaves free implemented. modifies allows extensions causes shown Governors.' H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 91—1783, p. 45 (1970). (Emphasis added.) 41 Nowhere suggest 111(f) dramatically broaden reach, modification matter minor. escape becomes clearer considers summary conference's work Senator Muskie presented Senate. single obtained submitted. follows: 'A approaches, impossible reduce) source, State.' 116 Cong.Rec. 42384—42385. 44 precedes statute, 110(e).20 Muskie's obviously referring extended up proper 110(e) 'the alternatives enough permit compliance.' contains parallel 110(f)(1)(c), utilized. Unlike considerably postponement. logical, relevant requirement.21 desired anomalous Congress, having significantly difficult met suffers, therefore, contrariety provided, willingness ascribe inconsistency enactment. foregoing structure shows compromised. declaration '(e)ach quality' boundaries, 107(a), left specifically discretion includes revise about 'correct,' said complete assurance complex 'correct' one. Given conclusion, well administration there undoubtedly reliance parties Udall Tallman, 380 1, 16—18, 85 792, 801—802, 616 (1965); McLaren Fleischer, 256 477, 480—481, 577, 578, 65 L.Ed. 1052 (1921). persuaded arguments advanced granting various turn. IV 47 language. fact speaks terms source,' language, belies inapplicable jeopardize went citation supporting reasoning: 48 requirement; (is a) party. familiar clear.' 401. 49 think read out careful sustain. place, requirement' define matters desirous solely While makes regardless relief, achieving appropriately rigorous showings. observation 'familiar thought applicability,22 depends revised. instance, revised, clear detailed, remedial steps sources. Not (2)(B) compliance,'23 urged been, still be, 'compliance schedules' plan.24 A further difficulty entirely postponements. normal usage, 'postpone' defer, 'revise' remake amend. context, usage remains deletes requirement. removed, person seeking need seek inapplicable. cannot example requirement's date—if straightforward, opinion, perceive strained line analysis.25 52 relied 1970. reasoned force specified, scheduled commitments stage According device assure this.' Clearly formidable hurdle departures What failed consider, forcing technological developments. assures maintained Thus ex hypothesi technologyforcing character 53 handled procedure, supra, 72-73, Circuit.26 stated: 54 'Had meant (§ 110(f)) polluter, besides violating objective requirements, preventing polluter raise perhaps litigate ivnite protracted delay. factual endless refinements: variance-seeker others whose standards? e.g., Getty Oil Company Ruckelshaus, 342 F.Supp. 1006 (D.Del.1972), remanded directions, 467 349 (3rd Cir. 1972), raised forums.' 886. 55 stress argument: invite litigation, impractical application, degradation environment. Aside goes chosen done, overstated. cited existing obtains variance, Should entity presumably rights review. carried polluter's public's, pendency remain effect, failure variety procedures.27 56 impressed displayed purported administrative revisions. Ordinarily, agency assumed contends placed it. showing, weight interpreting relevance aware drafted legislation otehrwise contentions. judgments passing complies frozen. instance measure compare modifications.28 manifest legislation, 1974 conserve energy. relation fuel burning 'without interfering standard.' 110(a)(3)(B) 256, 1857c—5(a)(3)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). V 57 forward several additional appeals. history. maximum strengthened Seante's specifying achieved years.' altered 'provide attempt Plan 'postponement." Brief 36. latter 'was conform' Committee's requirement.29 persuasive, multiple reasons. 58 finds documents debates. despite significance interpretation, made—the expansion against minor mix. arises instead reading inferences purpose. Second, simply 'would postponement.' states 59 Third, equates 'practicable' 'essential many impracticable, required, possibly justified security, welfare.30 Fourth, devised. Finally, whatsoever attained. compromise damage goals attaining maintaining last merit related restricted funneled through go step changes, goals.' 26. highly restrictive 110(a)(2)(H),31 specifies account expeditious determinations substantially inadequate. 61 110(a)(2)(H) nothing period. way prevents Nor requiring type type. revision' 110(a)(2)'s hearing; restrictions duty revisions.32 VI 62 reasons, error properly that, circumscribed exceptions, years, contrary, opinion. 63 ordered. 64 DOUGLAS dissents. POWELL took consideration case. 390 stay contested June 10, 1974, 417 942, 94 3065, 663. 1857c—5(a)(2), reads shall, (1), thereof. thereof, hearing (i) (subject subsection Section) apprval thereof standard); (ii) attained; including, to, land-use transportation controls; establishment appropriate devices, methods, systems, monitor, compile, analyze data request, Administrator; (4), (prior modification) location new performance apply; '(E) adequate intergovernmental cooperation, pollutants located outside region; '(F) assurances personnel, funding, carry installation equipment owners monitor (iii) periodic reports amounts emissions; (iv) correlated established times inspection; (v) com- parable 303, contingency authority; '(G) provides, inspection testing vehicles enforce standards; '(H) hearings, availability improved standard; whenever information inadequate achieve implements.' adhere schedules planning, contracting, permissible ttainment 51.15(c), 52.524(b) apparently adoption number 52.524(c) All except Texas, few Code 88—912 (1971), 'Variances.— department classes rule, regulation persons contaminants deem inappropriate variances, special render unreasonable, unduly burdensome, due physical causes, curtailment closing down businesses, plants operations, facility handling available. Such granted, give protection public, weigh equities involved relative advantages disadvantages resident occupation activity affected. Any filing therefor director department. promptly investigate recommendation disposition thereon petitioner. hearing: Provided, aggrieved thereon. revoked giving notice. served department, subjected modified, likely filed written request notification.' 75. Title (1973) portion(s) strategy source(s) necessitate plan: deemed 51.6.' Hearings, Implementation 1970—Part I (Title I), Subcommittee Water Pollution Public Works, 92d n. (statement Ayres). 75-76, 14. disapproval likewise identify offended requirement, clearly mandates 2, supra. petitioners point Court, occasion amended, 1689, 259, 1857d—1 dates late May 31, 1977, virtue 110(e). 20, infra. 110(f)(2) '(2) (A) (1) record interested opportunity hearing, fair evaluation statement detail findings conclusions based. appeals circuit praying aside whole part. copy forthwith sent registered certified mail thereupon certify complained issued, 2112 28, Code. Upon jurisdiction affirm questions (including subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D) (1)) sustained hearing. Proceedings precedence over action docket assigned expedited every way. 307(a) title (relating subpoenas) proceeding subsection.' recognize 'practicable,' immediate expedite attainment. 96-97 30. Exceptions vehicles, 202 seq. 1690—1698 258, 1857f—1 IV); aircraft, 231 1703—1705, 1857f—9 seq.; categories 111 1683, 464, 1857c—6 ed. I); regulate sale fuels additives, 211 1698 1857f—6c I). 911—913 added designated (B) region. event wholly partially included presentation evidence brought heard determined judges accordance 2284 appeal Supreme judge court, subsection, '(3) Secretary purpose presenting granted. discretion, residing '(4) paramount interest region, finding— means causing contributing caused Federal President 118 '(5) extend renewals periods court. '(6) Secretary, consultation formulate extension. '(7) timetable, schedule element fact, 'safety valve' report: 'Finally possible. portions of) bill authorize him—one deadline—to District expiration.' S.Rep.No.91—1196, pp. 14—15 (1970); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5356. 1857c—5(e), (2)) (a)(2)(A)(i) sources) reasonably justifiably achieved. for— classes) (1)(A) circumstances.' seem successive timely. potentially dispute this, deleted, comment, 111(f)(5) 18, decide note possibility imposition harsher note, difficulties application. Requirements impact, conscious evade 'specific' changes. Co. CA3 spoke fuel-burning rate heat input equal 500 million per hour, New Castle County, Del., south Route 40. installation. presently business operations. 48—49. know save us declare unavailable nature. Much confusion afflicted probably generated States' practice 'revised schedules,' 'variance' typically deferring required. Our concern, nomenclature exception revises by, say, 1972, of, 1975, possesses characteristics An deprive characteristic 110(d) defines 'applicable 'implementation recent 110(a)(2)) all, criticized Comment, Variance Procedures Act: Need Flexibility, Wm. Mary L.Rev. 324 (1973). Comment concerned mechanism, focusing conclusion's lack untoward results. commentator, writing decisions, today express. Luneburg, Federal-State Interaction B.C.Ind. Com.L.Rev. 637 (At wrote article, Luneburg attorney Enforcement Division, Region I.) Emission ways. 113 1686, 1857c—8 IV), imposes orders (the violation carries severe monetary penalties), bring civil injunctive relef. addition, 304 1706, 1857h—2, citizen suits alleged limitation, nondiscretionary act. Plaintiffs awarded attorneys' fees. 304(d). applications potential creating kind posed formulation regulations. arise simultaneous noted text, ultimately responsible anywhere near insurmountable. Variances foresee, questions, say answers, allocation ingenuity rigid course, rejecting construction. Compare 111(f), textual concerning simpler satisfactory explanation two, forum decision, triggered viewed recognition extreme justifying breach occur, equipment, population density Once 'region' 'person persons' sources' naturally. phrase convenient use conjunction inclusive former (while implicit 111(f)(4)'s relief; 'class persons,' restriction sensible small discernible inquiry). Whether involved, 'unreasonable, impractical,' 6, Respondents, attack ground, claim parts disagree. instances, 110(c)(1)(C), references types 110(d), neutral occur independently 110(a)(2)(H).

Category: 7