526 F.2d 1343 (10th Cir. 1975), 75-1404, American Petroleum Institute v. Train
|Citation:||526 F.2d 1343|
|Party Name:||AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Russell E. TRAIN, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||December 15, 1975|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Submitted Nov. 10, 1975.
Michael D. Graves, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Walter Kiechel, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred T. Ghiorzi, Edmund B. Clark, and James L. Treece, Attys., Dept. of Justice, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether the district court or the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review certain regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act). 33 U.S.C. ss 1251--1376, 86 Stat. 816 et seq. The district court held that jurisdiction lay exclusively in the court of appeals and sustained a motion to dismiss. We affirm.
The plaintiffs-appellants are American Petroleum Institute (API), an incorporated trade association of companies involved in the petroleum industry, and 10 companies which are engaged in petroleum refining and related activities and which do business in Colorado. Defendants-appellees are the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency itself.
The Administrator promulgated regulations pertaining to 'Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.' See 40 C.F.R. Subchapter N., Part 419, ss 419.10--419.56. Claiming that the regulations are invalid, API brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Administrator filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and the district court dismissed the action. API and its co-plaintiffs have not only appealed but have filed petitions directly in the court of appeals for review of the same agency action that is the subject of this appeal. The petitions for original review in the court of appeals have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the instant appeal. Herein the statutory references will be those found in the Act as set out in 86 Stat. 816 et seq. 1
The Act made 'a major change in the enforcement mechanism of the Federal water pollution...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP