APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Air Pollution Control Office

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dec.. 11, 1970

Stanley Weissman, Ph.D.

President, Citizens Clean
Air Association

226 Bellmonte Park East
Dayton, Ohio 45405

Dear Dr. Weissman:

Your letter of November 2, 1970, relative to the ambient air quality standards applicable to the Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, speaks to an issue which is of considerable importance in the development of air quality standards and implementation plans. One of the express purposes of the Clean Air Act, as amended, is to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources. During the review of the standards adopted for the Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality Control Region it was noted that the annual sulfur oxides standard was indeed higher than the observed levels in the Region, as submitted by the State of Ohio. The submitted standards, as you know, contained a non-deterioration clause. In the approval of the standards for the Region the State was reminded that it would be necessary to properly incorporate the principle of non-deterioration in the implementation plan.

Formal approval of the standards and implementation plan, by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will follow review of the implementation

plan. You may be assured that such review will include verification of the incorporation of the non-deterioration principle.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ John T. Middleton
JOHN T. MIDDLETON
Acting Commissioner

20

No. 72-804

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1972

WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PETITIONER

บ.

SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.

ON WRIT CF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

ERWIN N. GRISWOLD,

Solicitor General,

KENT FRIZZELL,

Assistant Attorney General,

LAWRENCE G. WALLACE,

Deputy Solicitor General,

HARRIET S. SHAPIRO,

Assistant to the Solicitor General,

EDMUND B. CLARK,

MARTIN GREEN,

JAMES R. WALPOLE,

Attorneys,

Department of Justice,

Opinions below.

Jurisdiction..

Question presented.

Statute involved..

Statement__

Summary of Argument.
Argument...

INDEX

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 re-
quire the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to approve State
plans for the implementation of national
air quality standards which enforce those
standards within the State, whether or not
they permit deterioration of existing air
quality which is cleaner than required by
the national standards...

A. The plain language of the Act requires
the Administrator to approve State
plans which meet the national stand-
ards...

B. The legislative history of the Act
corroborates its plain meaning....
C. The decision below is contrary to the
Administrator's regulations_

D. The interpretation adopted by the
courts below would impair, rather
than promote, achievement of the
Act's policy objectives..

Conclusion..

Cases:

CITATIONS

Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Environmental Pro

tection Agency, 462 F.2d 846......-.

Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 415.

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1.

Statute and regulations:

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857

et seq-

Section 101 (42 U.S.C. 1857).

Page

8

19

19

2, 23

18

Section 109(a) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-4(a)).

2, 23

Section 109(b) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-4(b))_2, 3, 8, 24

Section 110 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-5)..
Section 110(a) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-5(a))-

6, 12 3,

11, 14, 16, 24

Section 110(c) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-5 (c)).
Section 111 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6)

Section 111(a) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(a))___

12

Section 111(b) (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(b)).

12

Section 116 (42 U.S.C. 1857d-1).
Section 302(h) (42 U.S.C. 1857h (h)).
Section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 1857h-5(b))...

P.L. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485.