State of Ariz. v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | 74-1002,74-1009 and 74-1013,74-1001,Nos. 73-3577,BROADWAY-HALE,73-3588,s. 73-3577 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.STORES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before ELY, TRASK and SNEED, Circuit Judges.
The Environmental Protection Agency has indefinitely suspended those portions of the Maintenance of National Standards regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 52.22 (1974), which cover parking-related facilities, and the Management of Parking Supply regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 52.139 (1974), in its entirety. 40 Fed.Reg. 28064, 29713 (1975). Further, the EPA indicated in oral argument of Brown v. Environmental Protection Agency, 521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1975), that the latter suspension was equivalent to a revocation of the regulation. Therefore, for purposes of filing a new petition for review, lifting the suspension or amending the regulation would be the same as a promulgation of the regulation anew. A statement to similar effect is incorporated by reference in the Supplemental Submission filed by EPA in these cases on July 21, 1975. Under such circumstances, new petitions for review may be filed within 30 days of such promulgation, pursuant to section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1857h-5 (West.Supp.1975).
In view of these developments, the Court finds that so much of the petitioners' dispute with the EPA as pertained to the Management of Parking Supply regulation, supra, or those portions of the Maintenance of National Standards regulation, supra, which cover parking-related facilities, is moot, and that any future dispute is not before us. Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268, 281-84, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937); Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 258 F.2d 684 (1958). Accordingly, so much of the petitions of the parties listed above as is concerned with the regulations herein referenced is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners should the Administrator lift his suspension of 40 C.F.R. § 52.22...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety, s. 78-3306
...97 S.Ct. 1635, 52 L.Ed.2d 166 (1977). These regulations were held invalid in Brown v. EPA, 521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1975); Arizona v. EPA, 521 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1975); District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F.2d 971 (1975); Maryland v. EPA, 530 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1975). Because of these concessi......
-
Friends of the Earth v. Carey
...supra, are clearly inapplicable to this case. In each of those cases, as well as in State of Maryland v. EPA, supra, and in State of Arizona v. EPA, supra, the EPA, a federal agency, sought to compel states or their political subdivisions to take steps (including appropriation of funds, ado......
-
Brown v. E.P.A.
...40 F.Reg. 29713-714, and, for certain purposes, has been regarded by the EPA as a revocation. See State of Arizona, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 521 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1975), vacated 431 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 1635, 52 L.Ed.2d 166. In the face of this abortive attempt by the EPA to......
-
Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown Environmental Protection Agency v. Maryland State Air Pollution Control Board v. Costle Costle v. District of Columbia
...might be raised if the statute were read as the United States argued it should be. Brown v. EPA, 521 F.2d 827 (CA9 1975); Arizona v. EPA, 521 F.2d 825 (CA9 1975); District of Columbia v. Train, 172 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 521 F.2d 971 (1975); Maryland v. EPA, 530 F.2d 215 (CA4 1975). The only sub......
-
The State Implementation Plan Process
...of mootness sub nom. EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99, 7 ELR 20375 (1977) (per curiam). 384. A similar opinion was rendered in Arizona v. EPA, 521 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1975). 385. 530 F.2d 215, 5 ELR 20651 (4th Cir. 1975). 386. 521 F.2d 971, 6 ELR 20007 (D.C. Cir. 1975). federal government then peti......