## Facts

- The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to promulgate “emission standards” for hazardous air pollutants under § 112.
- EPA issued a “National Emission Standard for Asbestos” regulation governing demolition of buildings containing asbestos.
- The asbestos regulation required specified demolition procedures (“work practices”) but did not set a quantitative limit on asbestos emissions during demolition.
- The Act prohibits emissions in violation of an applicable “emission standard” (§ 112(c)(1)(B)) and makes knowing violations criminal offenses (§ 113(c)(1)(C)).
- Adamo Wrecking Co. was indicted for knowingly violating the asbestos demolition work-practice requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether Clean Air Act § 307(b) bars a criminal defendant from contesting, in the criminal case, that the regulation alleged to be violated is an “emission standard” within § 112.
2. Whether an asbestos demolition work-practice rule that prescribes procedures but does not limit emission amounts qualifies as an “emission standard” for purposes of criminal liability under §§ 112(c) and 113(c).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and reinstated the district court’s dismissal of the indictment.
- A defendant in a Clean Air Act criminal prosecution may argue that the regulation charged is not an “emission standard” as Congress used that term.
- Section 307(b)’s review-channeling provisions do not relieve the Government of proving, in a criminal case, that the regulation is an “emission standard” within the Act’s meaning.
- The trial court may determine whether the regulation falls within the statutory category that triggers criminal sanctions.
- On this record, the asbestos demolition work-practice rule was properly treated as not an “emission standard” for the charged criminal provisions.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory bar on judicial review in enforcement proceedings does not prevent a court from deciding whether the Government has proved an element that defines the scope of criminal liability.
- Administrative labeling of a rule as an “emission standard” does not control if Congress limited that term to a particular type of regulation, especially where serious criminal penalties attach.
- In criminal prosecutions under the Clean Air Act, courts may distinguish between (a) challenges to a rule’s validity (channeled to direct review) and (b) whether the rule is within the statutory category that the criminal provision requires.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 307(b) does not preclude a Clean Air Act criminal defendant from disputing that the regulation allegedly violated is an “emission standard,” and that the Government must prove the regulation fits that statutory category before criminal penalties may be imposed.


Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978)