I. THE CLEAN AIR ACT FORBIDS THE AD- A. The Plain Language of the Statute Prohibits B. The Legislative History and, Until Recently, 1. Early History 24 2. Legislative History of the Air Quality 24 3. Administrative Interpretation of the Air 25 4. Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 28 C. Petitioner has not Rebutted the Legislative 39 39 D. No Other Sections of the Act Support Peti- 50 E. Petitioner's Position is Inconsistent with II. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT 68 DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY 69 A. The Policy Issues Cannot Properly be De- 71 B. Public Policy Considerations Support Pro- 1. Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 2. The Difficulties Suggested by Petitioner 73 75 87 TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page CASES: Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, 322 U.S. 19 Commissioner v. Bilder, 369 U.S. 499 (1962) TABLE OF CITATIONS—Continued Page Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 363 U.S. 341 Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268 Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965) United States v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188 (1939).. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354 (1926) United States v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 278 U.S. 40 38 18 40 36, 37 19, 37 40 18 66 18 18, 19 19 United States v. Public Utilities Commission, 315 38 United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U.S. 482 38 United States v. Temple, 108 U.S. 97 (1881) ... 19 37 |