Document: 431 U.S. 99 97 S.Ct. 1635 52 L.Ed.2d 166 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Petitioner,v.Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of California, et al. Petitioner, v. State MARYLAND STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Agency, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Nos. 75-909, 75-960, 75-1050 and 75-1055. May 2, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 These cases arise under the Clean Air Act, as amended by Amendments 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 seq., raise questions concerning authority Administrator Agency to compel various types implementation enforcement actions States. Four separate decisions in Courts Appeals reviewed transportation control plans promulgated for several States which had previously failed submit adequate their own. petitions have been filed seeking review those which, with limited exceptions, invalidated Administrator's adopted form regulations. 2 Those a variety aspects need not be discussed great detail explain our disposition these cases. In general, they imposed upon obligations (1) develop an inspection maintenance program pertaining vehicles registered affected Quality Control Regions, fixed deadlines, both schedule compliance operative regulations was run; (2) retrofit programs classes older vehicles, order minimize different emissions; (3) designate enforce preferential bus carpool lanes, on streets sometimes specifically identified left chosen State; (4) monitor actual emissions foregoing programs; (5) adopt certain other varied from State. 3 The critical fact about all that were States, 40 CFR 52.23 (1976), elements applicable plan. A State's failure carry out any them would therefore merely allow step himself 113(a)(2) Act,1 but would, view each Appeals, render "in violation requirement plan" apparently subject direct against it provisions 113(a)(1), 1857c-8(a)(1): 4 "Whenever, basis information available him, finds person is plan, shall notify plan applies such finding. If extends beyond 30th day after date notification, may issue requiring comply requirements or he bring civil action accordance subsection (b) this action." 5 Under dual challenges within mandate if Constitution, United Ninth, Fourth, District Columbia Circuits struck down. All courts rested statutory interpretation, noted also serious constitutional might raised statute read argued should be. Brown EPA, 521 F.2d 827 (CA9 1975); Arizona 825 Train, 172 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 971 (1975); Maryland 530 215 (CA4 1975). only substantial variation outcome decisions2 Circuit affirmed creation purchase jurisdictions number new buses, denial registration vehicle whose owner unable produce federal certificate compliance, instituted. 6 Solicitor General's three challenged insofar state programs. addition, we granted petition certiorari Commonwealth Virginia its challenge upheld. Prior argument, General informed Court repeal imminent, Reply Brief Federal Parties 25,3 thereby effectively removed case. Thus litigation has undergone deal shrinkage since below due parties' exercise prerogative seek invalidation 7 But parties renounced intent pursue specified regulations; now appear admit remaining controversy are invalid unless modified respects: 8 "The . concedes necessity removing legally (Administrator's) contain no laws." 20 n. 14. 9 position appears that, while do require enactment legislation, contain, must eliminate, promulgate See 14 22. 10 We decline invitation pass EPA regulations, when ones before us admitted essential modifications. Such part amount rendering advisory opinion. For normally required first had, extraordinary. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Sawyer, 343 579, 584-585, 72 863, 865, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952). yet promulgated, final hinted at, wholly novel. generally Broadcasting System 316 407, 417-419, 62 1194, 1200-1201, 86 1563 (1942); Los Angeles Salt Lake R. Co., 273 299, 309-310, 47 413, 414, 71 651 (1927). 11 judgments respective vacated, remanded consideration mootness proceedings consistent 12 It so ordered. 13 Mr. Justice STEVENS, dissenting. takes today just puzzling position. Unless until rescinds dispute, perfectly clear moot. Moreover, apparent admission proper reason vacating 15 satisfied will modify regardless litigation, writs dismissed improvidently granted. On hand, survival dependent cases, address merits resolve issues fully briefed argued. By below, hands partial victory reward concession supported statute. I respectfully dissent. Section 113(a)(2), 1857c-8(a)(2), provides: violations widespread result effectively, notice, give public notice During period beginning ending satisfies (hereafter referred section 'period federally assumed enforcement'), respect "(A) issuing requirement, "(B) bringing section." decision Ninth Circuit, similar set Pennsylvania upheld Third Circuit. 500 246 (1974). That presently Court. officially rescinded February 8, Fed.Reg. 7957.

Category: 8