# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tennessee Valley Authority v. Environmental Protection Agency (Nos. 75-774, 75-787) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2157%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1975 ## Text rene Cou r mines will protect the public health. It is attainment and maintenance of these national standards which § L!0/a) (2)(A) requires that state plans provide. In complying with this requirement a State’s plan must include “emis- sion limitations,” which are regulations of the composi- tion of substances emitted into the ambient air from such sources as power plants, serv-ce sta'‘ons, and the hke. They are the specific rules to which opera‘o’s of po!:.- tion sources are subject and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets the national s‘andards. Id at —— (shp opinion at 16-17). The key word in this definition is “composition.” The pertinent definition of “composition” in Webster's Third New International Dictionary appears to be “the nature of a chemi- cal compound or mixture as regards the kind and amounts of its constituents... .” Under this definition a rule or regula- tion pertaining to sulfur dioxide or any other con.aminant, would qualify as an emission limitation only if ‘+ regulates the amount of that kind of material which may be include? in the emission from a given source. The petitioners contend that the use of the word “compo- sition” by the Supreme Court was unfortunate, but the! the opinion in Train v. NRDC otherwise fully supports thcir po- sition They rely particularly on the following language: The Agency is plainly charged by the Act with the re- sponsibility for setting the national ambient air standar:is. “5. 74-2015, 74-2020 Big Rivers Elec., et al. v. EPA 11 ‘ust as plainly, however, it is relegated by the Act to a «ondary role in the process of determining and en- cing the specific, source-by-source emission lim:tations hich are necessary if the national standards it has set e to be met. Under §110(a)(2), the Agency 1s re- aired to approve a state plan which provides for the timely attainment and subsequent maintenance of am- hient air standards, and which also satisfies that sect:on’s cthe: general requirements. The Act gives the Ayency ro authonty to question the wisdom of a State’s choices .£ emission limitations if they are part of a plan which catisties the standards of $110(a)(2), and the Agency may devise and promulgate a specific plan of its own only if a State fails to submit an implementation plan which satisfies those standards. §110(c). Thus, so long as the ultimate effect of a State’s choice of emission limitations is compliance with the national standards for vmbient air, the State is at liberty to adopt whatever mix of emission limitations it deems best suited to its particular situation. ~~ U.S. at —— (slip opinion at 17). ‘Ye cannot assume that the word “composition” was impxre- cory used The language qucted above follows the Court’s ‘onmimuon of emiss‘on limitations and must be read in the light of it No plan satisfies the requirement of Section ii0(a)(2)(B) . rch might be construed to permit a source of pollutant ‘issions to contmue operating beyond the time limit es ihshed in Section 110(a)(2)(A) without the application ue or more systems which conirel the “kind and amecunts” > aY Contaminant emissions. The iimisieens Getermined be provision of the Kentucky Phin which he disapproved ceptible of a construction which would perm t stat: Pomeciues rot cwitiin the ceSmtion of “-missran ithour a showing that measure, which stefs j .1* ” - » % ose ; 1G , by t forays : ‘ fsa VAIADIC, eae 6 46e as 12% oar ACL TITY T- BERD ict KPT RGR, RES 12 Big Rivers Elec., et al. v. EPA Nos. 742015, 74-2020 tor acted within the scope of his authority, that his decision was not arbitrary and did not constitute an abuse of discretion The first purpose of the 1955 Clean Air Act was stated o be “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nations air resources... ” 42 U.S.C. § 1857(b)(1). As the Supreme Court pointed out in Train v. NRDC the states responded slow- ly to expressions of congressional concern about air pollution between 1955 and 1970, and “Congress reacted by taking a stick to the States in the form of the Clean Air Amendmenis of 1970. ..” —— US. at —— (slp opinion at 2). The national pchcy 1 to reduce air pollution. Under the dual scheme, the freedom of the States to choose the manner of achieving this goal was made subject to the absolute require- ment that every state plan include emission limitations as an ingredient N thing in th legislative hnstory of the Act suggests that the Administrator has misinterpreted the con gressional will ‘n h’s construction of Section 110(a)(2)(B). As the Sup eme Court no ed in Train v NRDC, int rpretations of this complex s'atute by the agency -harged with admin- istering it are entitled to grea* deference Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1965), McLa env Fleischer, 256 U.S 477, 480 81 (1921). This court finds no reason to substitute its judgment fo ‘hat of EPA in construing the Act The petitions for review are demed. es --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2157%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.