American Petroleum Institute v. Train, No. 75-1404.

Citation526 F.2d 1343
Decision Date15 December 1975
Docket NumberNo. 75-1404.
PartiesAMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Russell E. TRAIN, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Edward W. Warren, Washington, D. C. (Frank H. Morison, Edwin S. Kahn, Gerald W. Grandey, Denver, Colo., Frederick M. Rowe and Robert F. Van Voorhees, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

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. §§ 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, §§ 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 control program from water quality standards to effluent limits." S.Rep.No.92-414, 92 Cong.2d Sess., 2 U.S.Cong. & Admin.News '72, pp. 3668, 3675. The goal of the Act is the elimination by 1985 of the "discharge of pollutant into the navigable waters." § 101(a)(1). To attain the goal, effluent limitations on discharges are provided for existing sources and standards of performance are prescribed for new sources. The limitations on existing sources are found in § 301(b) which sets up specified goals for July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1983. The limitations require application of the control technology established by the Administrator under § 304. That section authorizes, subsection (b), the Administrator to publish regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations. No authority for imposition of effluent limitations by regulation is contained in § 301.

In the instant appeal we are concerned only with regulations imposing effluent limitations on discharges by existing sources. The Act is clear that judicial review of regulations prescribing standards of performance for new sources lies exclusively in the court of appeals.

The pertinent provision in the Act for judicial review of agency action is § 509(b)(1)(E) which provides that:

"Review of the Administrator's action * * * in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under § 301 and other specified sections not including § 304 * * * may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in which such person resides or transacts such business upon application by such person."

The action sought to be reviewed is the Administrator's promulgation of regulations fixing effluent limitations for existing sources and standards of performance for new sources. The regulations provide, 40 C.F.R. Subchapter N, § 401.10, that:

"Regulations promulgated or proposed under Parts 402 through 699 our concern is with Part 419 of this subchapter prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment standards for new and existing sources pursuant to sections 301, 304(b) and (c), 306(b) and (c), 307(b) and (c) and 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended * * *."

API says that the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction because the Act does not authorize the Administrator to promulgate § 301 regulations imposing effluent limitations on existing sources. The argument is beside the point because the Administrator has not only claimed the power but also has acted to promulgate regulations under § 301. Our present concern is with the jurisdiction of the court of appeals — not with the statutory authority of the Administrator.

Existence of jurisdiction must not be confused with the exercise of that jurisdiction. By enacting § 509(b) Congress established a statutory plan to be followed in obtaining review of agency actions under the Act. Only those courts upon which Congress has bestowed authority have jurisdiction. Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans, 379 U.S. 411, 420, 422, 85 S.Ct. 551, 13 L.Ed.2d 386. In the instant case, jurisdiction is incident to a federal statute granting the right of an interested person from within the circuit to file a petition in the court of appeals to review agency action. See The Fair v. Kohler Die Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25, 33 S.Ct. 410, 57 L.Ed. 716. The validity or invalidity of that action has no bearing on jurisdiction. In the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction, the court determines whether the Administrator acted within his statutory authority.

Problems created by the Act have been considered in several circuits. CPC International Inc. v. Train, 8 Cir., 515 F.2d 1032, was an original proceeding in the court of appeals attacking several regulations under Subchapter N, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Aminoil U.S.A., Inc. v. California State Water Resources Control Bd., 80-5516
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 2, 1982
    ...587 F.2d 549, 555 (2d Cir. 1978); American Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 124 (D.C.Cir.1976); American Petroleum Inst. v. Train, 526 F.2d 1343, 1345-46 (10th Cir. 1975). In addition, it appears that the district courts' jurisdiction over civil enforcement actions initiated by the......
  • Maier v. U.S. E.P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 28, 1997
    ...of the United States." 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). 7 The jurisdictional grant in section 1369 is exclusive. American Petroleum Inst. v. Train, 526 F.2d 1343, 1344 (10th Cir.1975). We must determine whether the EPA's denial of Maier's petition to institute rulemaking constitutes an "action ... i......
  • American Frozen Food Institute v. Train
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 11, 1976
    ... ... I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 528 F.2d 1136 (4th Cir. 1975); American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1343 (10th Cir. 1975) ...         2. Simultaneous Issuance. Petitioners' primary attack (as opposed to that of ... ...
  • Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, LOUISIANA-PACIFIC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 29, 1979
    ...1976, 537 F.2d 620, 622, 624, 628; American Meat Institute v. E.P.A., 7 Cir., 1975, 526 F.2d 442, 444, 452; American Petroleum Inst. v. Train, 10 Cir., 1975, 526 F.2d 1343, 1345. In contrast, where permit applicants have challenged individual applications of EPA regulations, the courts of a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT