# Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Train > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2147%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Respondent in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 425 U.S. 935 ## Text INDEX Page NINOS SW co nccnaninesmaccntacuutnesmgadaiine 1 MND Sonctirtactaepsacerespnchcracnmwes nae talanmommarcnes 1 RNR NORE OR RMT ON 1 ne II 2 SEI eiseesccb. anon ierenactacns ie doeni cancer aie 2 PIII rissa cents is inciaimenininena siemens D RING conc ac eaten ceeneeoepiont ee 14 CITATIONS Cases: Big Rivers Electric Corporation y. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, 523 F. 2d 16, petitions for a writ of certiorari pending, Nos. 75-774 and 75-787______- 7,8 National Labor Relations Board y. Bell Aerospace Company, 416 U.S. 267______ 10 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 489 F. 2d 390, reversed in part sub nom. Train v. Natural Resources Defense Comets, Bak WB Diivncininnddetecin 6-7, 8, 10 Sterra Club vy. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253, affirmed sub nom. Fri vy. Sierra Coy Ee Sls bale ctnnideaacciaice: 10 State of Texas y. Environmental Protec- tion Agency, 499 F. 2d 289___......___- 7 Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, No. 74-1542, argued Jan- RY Ri, Seika dence camuniuecnelan 6, 7 203-531—76——-1 » Dia OR ee Baers Ere eee | Sa II Statutes and regulations: Clean Air Act, 77 Stat. 392, as amended ine and added by the Clean Air Amend- ments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.: Section 109(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢- STEED tniecammaatcidadaisiacceies 8 Section 109(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢- TA REIT soc et des ceiannineatdcbainn 9 Section 110, 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5________ 2 Section 110(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢- BED sentatinin st cgeies ea neoeonaida: 9 Section 110(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢- PMN ID seeniratiemnccbesatinel tentsibnansitesseses 2, 6,7 Section 110(a)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢c-5(a) (2) (B) ------ 1-2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13 Section 110(c), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5(c¢)_ 3 Section 119, 42 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) eg Re atte ne ene TO 12 Section 119(¢)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1857¢e-10(¢) (2) (B)_--- 13 Section 119(c)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C, (Supp. IV) 1857e-10(¢) (2) (C)_--_ 13 Energy Supply and Environmental Coor- dination Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-319, 88 ee RE ee ser 12 BO Te IOI Fon concen seen, 4 40 C.F .R. 52.1475(e) (13) _.-........._..- 4 ER Fe CLG | | a ee 4 Miscellaneous: 119 Cong. Rec. 41774-41777 (1973)___--_-- il 120 Cong. Rec. S 10409 (daily ed. June 12, EE eencindeciatnkeanscnenniaitmnine cosine 12 es Be, aid ei ear ena ects cebiiees 2 40 Fed. Reg. 5509-5510______-___._______ 3 ee a Ill Miscellaneous—Continued Page ie ee | re keno 3, 4-5 40 Bed. Hee, 5615... 2222 ee 4 Ae i. | eee 4 i at. ARS if SC CR 4 H.R. 11450, 93d Cong., Ist Sess. (1973) ___ 11 H.R. Rep. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d aaa ER Eg) PRE O S e ON oe ee 10 H.R. Rep. No. 93-1013, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. {> Rape eNte ae? nla pcre tee ee 11 S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-663, 93d Cong., 1st PI ST wie iaerepicectintc ngparseiceeeikickas 11 S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (Se?) na teideeeeens onda ee 10 SS ee ON ARPT WEE REN CPR AST BS nN tA oer ome PECs 4 RG + PELOTON LATE SEPT RT PREM ATRIA FYE eR RETIRE amie NEEREt oes: Teer mecemait. TH POOR COPY Su the Supreme Gourt of the Cited States OcTOBER TERM, 1975 No. 75-1029 KENNECOTT CoprpER CoRPORATION, PETITIONER v. Russett E. Trarx, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. Ja-22a) is reported at 526 F. 2d 1149. JURISDICTION The judzment of the court of appeals was entered on November 28, 1975. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on January 20, 1976. The juris- diction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency correctly interpreted Section (1) PLEASE LAGGED. LILLE LOLI! LILES SMO ME SIRI IEG ROR EOE MI LEE OPT * aay 2 119(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857¢- 5(a)(2)(B), to require that state implementation plans, designed to meet national ambient air quality standards, must use continuous emission reduction techniques to the extent available and may not rely on intermittent or supplemental emission control measures on a permanent basis. STATUTE INVOLVED Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as added by the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1680, 42 U.S.C. 1857c¢—5, is set out in pertinent part at Pet. 2-3. STATEMENT The Clean Air Act, 77 Stat. 392, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq., requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate na- tional primary and secondary ambient air quality standards that will protect the public from known or anticipated adverse effects of various air pollutants. Each State is primarily responsible for assuring the quality of the air within its territory and must devise a state implementation plan designed, at a minimum, to implement, maintain and enforce the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Under Section 110(a)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857¢—5(a) (2), the Administrator is required to ap- prove a state implementation plan if he determines. inter alia, that “it imeludes emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations * * *” (Section 110(a) (2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5(a)(2)(B)). ERC Ops RE eye en RET mp Cee ince i VL HUDLE I SCA BOTY ANE RE Hape SL PORE IRE OG POOR COPY sateen 7 0 6% re | Pre 3 The Administrator previously had approved those provisions of Nevada’s plan relating to control stra- tegy except those involving control of sulfur oxide emissions from petitioner’s McGill smelter, the only major source of such emissions in the Nevada Intra- state Air Quality Control Region (Pet. App. 3a). On June 14, 1974, the State of Nevada submitted amend- ments to its plan that would have required application of constant emission control technology to reduce sul- fur oxide emissions from the smelter by 60 percent of the sulfur contained in the unprocessed ore. In order fully to meet all ambient air quality standards, the amendments envisioned the use of a new 750-foot tall smokestack and also would have required use of “supplementary”’’ or ‘‘intermittent’’ control systems designed to control emissions further by curtailing or discontinuing production on days when meteorological conditions were conducive to ground level concentra- tions in excess of the ambient air quality standards. 40 Fed. Reg. 5509-5510. The Nevada amendments would have permitted use of these supplementary con- trol systems on a permanent basis and did not require application of additional direct emission controls as they became available. 40 Fed. Reg. 5510. On February 6, 1975, after public hearings, the Administrator disapproved Nevada’s amendments and promulgated substitute sulfur oxide emission hmnita- tions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5(c). 40 Fed Reg. 5508, et sey. The Administrator determined that an 86 percent reduction in sulfur oxide emissions was neces- sary to meet the ambient air quality standards (Pet. App. 6a), but recognized that attainment of that emis- sion level could not reasonably be achieved at present mS Gt 9 REE SF wil pk 1 FS Kae ew le RL Ae. RPEFY - ” BLEED THROUGH SATAN OASIS or | 4 using only constant emission reduction controls, The PA Adiinistrator’s regulations therefore provided that, as a temporary measure, petitioner may install certain already ordered constant emission reduction technology that would produce the 60 percent redue- tion contemplated by the Nevada amendments, and must employ such additional and supplementary con- trol measures or other dispersion techniques as may be necessary to meet the air quality standards, 40 CLELR. O21ATH(e) (7): 40 Red. Reg. 5515. The Administrator determined, however, that the permanent use of such techniques could not be justified.' He therefore directed petitioner to carry on or support a research and devel- opment program directed at attaining compliance with those standards solely through constant emission re- duction techniques, and to adopt improved technology as it becomes available for use. 40 CPLR. 52.1475(e) » (15); 40 Ped. Reg. 5516, 5517. As stated in the siiililla to the regulations (40 Fed. Ree. 5510); EPA will approve such measures as intermit- tent production curtailment and use of dispersion techniques, incliding tall stacks, as an addition to available constant control measures, until such time as the treatment of weak gas streams can be accomplished through reasonable retrofit control techniques, Evaluation of the availabiniy of con- stant control techniques whieh may be developed in the future will be made using the same criteria ‘In its Memorandum in Support of Petitioner, the Staie of Nevada overlooks the Administrator's distinction between the temporary and permanent use of supplementary control techni- ques. It erroneously contends that “[t]he only material difference between the [f}ederal plan and the Nevada plan” is the require Ment that petitioner condnet a research program (Nev, Mom. 2). - 0 as were used in developing these regulations. Namely, [supplementary control systems] will continue to be allowed where permanent produc- tion curtailment, shutdown or delays in attain- ment of national standards are the only other alternatives. Petitioner filed a timely petition for review of the Adiministrator’s actions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The State of Nevada intervened in support of petitioner, The court held that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires the use of corstant emission reduction tech- nology and that the Administrator therefore had properly rejected that portion of the Nevada plan that would have permitted the permanent use of internit- tent controls, The court concluded that the Adminis- trator acted within the scope of his authority “in re- fusing toe accept intermittent controls as adequate colupliance with the statute” (Pet. App. ba). ARGUMENT Petitioner contends (Pet. 10-12) that the Adminis- trator’s disapproval of that portion of the Nevada im- plementation plan allowing permanent use — of supplementary control measures exceeded his au- thority under the Clean Air Act. It argues that in iaplementing its “preferred strategy” of constant eniussion reductions for attaining and maintaining winbient air standards, EPA derogated from the power of the States to formulate emission control strategies, in violation of the statutory division of pollution con- trol responsibilities between the federal and_ state governments, However, EPA's adoption of this strat- 202-521 -- 76-——-2 6 egy was not a discretionary act but a mandatory re- sponse to the manifest congressional intention that ambient air standards be met whenever possible by continuous emission control limitations.’ Its rejection of the Nevada amendments was in strict compliance with its assigned role under the Clean Air Act. The decision of the court of appeals therefore is correct, and it does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any court of appeals.’ 1. Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5() (2) (B), requires that every state implementation plan include emission Hmitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of sueh primary or secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls. Every court that has considered this language las construed it to require the use of all available meas- ures for contintteus limitation of emissions, See Na- fural Resourecs Defouse Council, Tne. ve Ruviven- > Thus, the State of Nevada incorrectly asserts (Nev. Mem. 3) that the Adininistrater’s sole justification for requiring continu- ous elission limitations was their “convemlence and ease of en- forcement”. This argument is also implicit in petitioner's refer- ences to the Adniiistrator’s “preferred strategy” (see Pet. 2.5), In Jovian Bheetric Coon, Buvivoniwental Protection Aqeuey. No. T4-15i2. argued January 21, 1976. we contended that upon judicial review of the Administrator’s approval of a state imple- mentation phin under the Clear Air Act, the court may not con- sider claims that compliance is economically or technological infeasible: As we argued in that ease, there is noe requirement in Section 110(a)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857-5 (a) (2). that in deciding whether to approve a state-submitted implementation — et 7 mental Protection Agency, 489 F. 2d 390, 106-409 (CLA. 5), reversed in part on other grounds sub nom, Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 4221 US. 60; State of Teras vy. Environmental Protection Ayency, 499 BF. 2d 289, 311-313 (CLA. 5): Big Rivers Electric Corporation Vv. Environmental Protection Agency, 523 F. 2d 16 (CLA. 6), petitions for a writ of certiorari pending, Nos. 75-774 and 75-787. In Tratn vy. National Resources Defense Council, supra, 421 U.S. at 78, this Court stated that state im- plementation plans to attain and maintain national ambient air standards must include “emission Jimitations,” which are regulations of the composition of substances eniutted into the ambient air from such sourees as power plants, service stations, and the like. They are specifie rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if en- plan, the Administrator must consider whether compliance with the emission limitations therein is feasible. Accordingly, so long as the plan is sufficient to achieve ambient air standards wo ve- quires continnous emission limitations, it must be approved, If. however, a state plan appears facially inadequate in that i could be construed to permit: intermittent emission Tinitations, the Administrator must review it to determine whether the inter mittent controls are justified. Only if the demonstration of ade quoey Which must aecompany the submission of each dmaplementa- tion plan shows that constant emission controls are unavatlable will tae Administrator approve a plan that permits ue of disper sion technology suel. as tatermittent controls. Thus. the Adriins trator does not review the feasibility of compliance with a state- submitted plan where itis adequate on its facecas in Vaden Blee- fetes Imit will concider feasibility only in determining whether special eirenmstances justify approving an apparently deficient plan that fails to inelude constant emission lindtations neee sary to obtain approval under Section 110(a) (2), resorting instead to dispersion techniques, is a forced should result in ambient air which meets the national standards [emphasis supplied]. As had the Sixth Circuit in Big Rivers, supra, the court below correctly interpreted this statement to mean that “emission limitations” do not include regu- lations that merely regulate the time during which pollutants may be dispersed into the atmosphere or the altitude of the smokestack through which they are dispersed, which are the effects of intermittent or supplemental control systems (Pet. App. lWa-l2a). 2. ‘Phe purpose of the Clean Air Act further eoi- linus that Congress intended to require that state im- plementation plans require continuous — emission controls if available. National primary ambient air quality standards are those “requisite to protect the publie health,” 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-4(b) (1): national secondary ambient air quality: standards are. those ‘To be sures the Court in Zr held that “so long as the na- tional standards are being attained and maintained. there is no basis in the present Clean Air Act for forcing further techno- logical developments” (4d. at 91). But the Court was referring to modification of source-by-source emission limitations fixed by the State, which the Administrater must approve so long as the state plan as a whole provides for a mix of emission limitations from all sources sufficient to meet national air quality standards : if these limitations are suflicient, the Administrator may not raise the limitation on a particular source to force technological im- provement as to that source, The Court did not thereby preclude the Adiministrator from withholding his approval of state imple- mencation plans that did not employ “emission limitations” or that could Le construed to permit intermittent emission controls when continuous controls were available, Nor did it prevent the Adiainistrator from seeking to force sufficient development of technology so that ambient air standards may be met solely through emission limitation controls, rather than by supple- reentary techniques (Pet. App. Dla-l2a n. 22). 9 “requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air,” 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-4(b) (2). State implementation plans must provide for attainment and “maintenance” of these standards, 42 U.S.C. 1857¢-5(a) (1). Internit- tent controls, however, do not provide a sufficient enarantee that national primary and secondary am- bient air quality standards will be maintained. As the court below stated (Pet. App. lla-12a): Intermittent control systems (such as those re- stricting production, or utilizing less pollut- ing fuels, during periods of adverse weather) do limit the amount of pollutant emitted while such controls are being applied. However, the reliability and enforceability of such controls is questionable; they may not be implemented when they are in fact needed. Moreover, there is no assurance that temporary reductions im emissions resulting from such controls will not be balanced, or even exceeded, by an increase im the amount of pollutant emitted when weather conditions improve and production is increased to make up for prior losses, or more polluting fuels are again used. Thus, intermittent con- trols, like tall stacks, may only disperse the pollutant rather than reduce it. Tall smoke- stacks disperse a pollutant through ereater quantities of air: intermittent control systems disperse a pollutant through longer periods of time. Neither assures: a_ reduction in the quantity of the pollutant eventually emitted. Under section [110(a)(2)(B)], EPA may re- quire that assurance [footnote omitted]. 10 Moreover, since the use of dispersion techniques merely regulates the timing or altitude, but not the quantity, of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere (Pet. App. lla-1l2a), it is at odds with the policy of nondegradation in the Clean Air Act.’ As the court of appeals stated in Natural Resources Defense Council, Tne. ve Environmental Protection Agency, supra, 489 I*. 2d at 408-409: Dispersion * * * techniques operate by keeping pollutants out of areas of Jigh pollutant con- centration, and dispersing them to lower con- centration areas; their objective is to reduce concentrations in high-concentration areas. In- evitably, however, the pollutants emitted into the atmosphere must end up somewhere; and the atmosphere at their destination, wherever that may be, will be degraded, in violation of the congressional policy. The only techniques fully capable of guaranteeing non-degradation are [continuous] emission limitation — tech- niques.° 3. “[SJubsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to significant weight,’ National Labor Relations Board vy. Bell) Acrospace Company, 416 U.S. 267, 275, and the legislative his- * This policy requires that areas of clean air, where air quality indices are above the levels set by the national ambient air quality standards, must not be degraded, even though degradation will not reduce the quality of the air below levels specified by the standards. See S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st C One 2d Sess. 2 (1970): IT.R. Rep. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 1,205 vane Nierra CVuh ve Reuckelshaus. DAL EF. Supp. 253, 255 (1D. D.C.). atlirmed suh nom. Brive Sierra Club Al2 US 5 AL, * The court classified both tall stacks and intermittent controls as dispersion techniques (47. at 594 n. 2). 11 tory of subsequent amendments to the Clean Air Act shows that Congress intended that state implementa- tion plans should require the use of continuous enis- sion controls when available (see Pet. App. P3a-22a). Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1974, in response to the 1973 oil embargo and energy crisis. As it passed the House of Representatives, the 1973 predecessor to the 1974 amendment, which subse- quently was vetoed, permitted the permanent use of intermittent controls at certain emission sources.’ The Conference Committee eliminated this provision and in its draft permitted intermittent controls only upon pollution sources that converted to coal, and then only as a temporary relief measure under specified conditions.” In March 1974, the Administrator transmitted a new proposed bill to the House which, in pertinent part, Was the same in substance as the statute even- tually adopted. The Administrator also transmitted another proposal, which he did not support, that would have amended Section T857e-5(a)(2)(B) to provide that nothing in that section was to be con- strued “ ‘to preclude use of * * * intermittent control measures.” 7?" 'Phe Administrator stated that this pro- posed amendment, which was intended * ‘to allow the use of intermittent control strategies as a permanent "Murphy Amendments to TLR. P50. Section 201, 83d Cong. Ist Sess, (19793): 119 Cong. Rec. 41775-41777 (1973). *s. Conf. Rep. No. 95-663, 95d Cong... Ist Sess. 83-84 (1975). * Letter dated March 22. 1974. from Russell BE. Prain, Adiain- istrator of EPA. to Hon, Carl TP. Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, attached to TLR. Rep. No. 93-1013, 98d Cong. Zab Sess, (L974). (See Pet. App. 1a—19a.) 12 method for achieving compliance with stationary source emission standards’, would “‘signifieantly weaken the Clean Air Act.’ *’ The Administrator re- affirmed the contrary position taken by the Environ- mental Protection Agency, stating, “*[a]s in the past, EPA will contend that the intermittent controls ‘an be used only as an expedient, temporary control measure.” (See Pet. App. 18a.) In the course of presenting the Conference Report on the 1974 amendment to the Senate, Senator Muskie, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution and manager of the bill in the Senate, stated (120 Cong. Ree. S. 10409 (daily ed. June 12, 1974)): ** * TNJo one should view limited application of enforceable strategies related to this legisla- tion as a precedent for future legislation or as a reinterpretation of the requirements of the existing law which bar the application of in- termittent control strategies as a substitute for emission limitations. When finally enacted, the Energy Supply and Knvironmental Coordination Act of 1974, Pub. LL. 95-319, 88 Stat. 246, added a new Section 119 to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. (Supp. EV) 1857¢-L0, which permits certain power plants and other large emission sources that convert from burning oil or natural gas to burning coal to obtain temporary relief from air pollution control requirements and thereby to use in- termittent controls temporarily if certain specified conditions are met. One of the conditions is that the souree in question must enter into binding contracts to acquire cither a long-term supply of low-sulphor 13 coal or a “continuous emission reduction system.” Whichever alternative is chosen, the arrangement must achieve the necessary degree of emission reduc- tion not later than December 31, 1978. Use of inter- mittent controls after that date is not permitted. See Sections 119(¢)(2)(B) and (C), 42 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1857¢-10(¢) (2) (B) and (C). Since the purpose of this legislation was to encour- age certain power plants to convert from oil or gas to coal and to provide relief to those plants that switched to coal because of the oil supply interruption, it is in- conceivable that Congress intended to impose on such sources a greater burden than if they had not con- verted, Accordingly, Congress must have assumed that intermittent controls were not permitted prior to the 1974 amendment.” 0 On March 18, 1976. the Ilouse Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce ordered that IT.R. 10498, a bill further amend- ing the Clean Air Act, be reported favorably to the House. Section 103(a) of that proposed bill would add a new Section 12i(a) to the Clean Air Act which would define the term “means of emission limitation” for purposes of that Section as “a system of continuous emission reduction (including the use of specific technology or fuels with specified pollution characteristics) * * *.° A comparable provision, defining “emission limitation” as a requirement limit- ing the emission of air pollutants on a continuous basis. is included as Section 33(i) of a similar bill to amend the Clean Air Act cur- rently pending before the Senate Committee on Public Works. If adopted, these bills would remove any residual ambiguity in the expression of the congressional intention that state implementation plans must require the use of continuous emission limitations when available. Moreover, Section 5(b) of the Senate biH weuld amend Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act to provide that the Administrator mist approve a state submitted implementation plan if, among other requirements, “it includes emission limita- tions, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limita- ore 1 ew Bock Rh ah EY a NR BAD Sha AD. forte ee aS ee, 14 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, it is respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Rosert H. Bork, Solicitor General. pT TP 4 ep Perer R. Tart, Assistant Attorney General, Jacques LB. GELIN, EpwWarb J. SHAWAKER, CuarLes W. SHIPLEY, Attorneys. Marcu 1976. tions, and, in addition, as may be necessary, (i) to assure attain- ment and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard, such other measures, including, but not limited to * * * enforceable supplemental emission reduction strategies for existing nonferrous smelters * * *,” Section 121(c) (3) (A) of the House bill would provide that the owner of an existing nonferrous smelter may receive up to two five-year extensions of the date f- > eempliance with any require- ment of a state implementation pla. © :on a demonstration that it is necessary to use other measures, presumably including dispersion techniqnes, to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards if the Administrator has determined that no “means of emission limitation” (as that term is defined above) necessary for compliance with such requirement is reasonably available, Thus, both houses of Congress have recognized that before non- ferrous smelters may, for an extended period of time, rely upon supplemental control techniques to comply with state implementa- tion plans, the present Clean Air Act must be amended. Further- more, the pendency of these amendments demonstrates that Congress is aware of the problems of the smelter industry and is considering whether special treatment is appropriate, If the Act is duly amended along the lines suggested by the proposed legisla- tion, the question presented in this case may be of no prospective significance, US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2147%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.