Petition — TEXAS CHEMICAL CHEMICAL COUNCIL v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Nos. 75-325, 75-324, 75-326)

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1975

no £27929 |

TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL, Petitioner

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR «HE FIFTH CIRCUIT

DoNnALD L. HOWELL

VINSON, ELKINS, SEARLS,

CONNALLY & SMITH

2100 First City National

Bank Building

Houston, Texas 77002

713-236-2222

HuGH M. PATTERSON

THOMAS M. PHILLIPS

LARRY B. FELDCAMP

BAKER & BOTTS

3000 One Shell Plaza

Houston, Texas 77002

713-229-1234

er ee en ee a te ee er ee ee

Alpha Law Brief Co., One Main Plaza, No.1 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002

Supreme Court of the united States

OCTOBER TERM, 1975

NO.

TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL, Petitioner

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent .

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Texas Chemical Council petitions for a writ of

certiorari to, review the decision and judgment of the

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered in State of Texas

et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 73-3540.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at

499 F.2d 289.’

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on

August 7, 1974. A timely petition for rehearing was filed

1. See App. A to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this

case by Exxon Corporation et al.

2

on September 3, 1974, and denied on February 19,

1975.’ Thereafter, the Fifth Circuit denied a second peti-

tion for rehearing on April 3, 1975.*° On June 27, 1975,

an extension of the time to file this petition for writ of

certiorari to and including August 31, 1975 was granted

(No. A-1063). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The questions presented for review by this Court are:

1. Whether the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency can lawfully promulgate control mea-

sures in a substitute implementation plan under Section

110(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(c),

without consideration of technological infeasibility, safety,

and other public interest factors?

2. Whether the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency has statutory authority under the Clean

Air Act to regulate vapor emissions from ships and barges

despite Congress’ deliberate deletion from the Act of pro-

visions for control of vessel emissions?

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

This petition involves the ship and barge hydrocarbon

vapor recovery regulation of the Texas Transportation

Control Plan, 40 C.F.R. § 52.2287,* which was promul-

2. See App. B to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this

case by Exxon Corporation et al.

3. See App. C to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this

case by Exxon Corporation et al.

4. See App. D to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this

case by Exxon Corporation et al.

3

ated by Respondent Environmental Protection Agency on

November 6, 1973 pursuant to Sections 110(a)(2) and

110(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 84 Stat. 1680,

42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(a)(2), (c).°

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Texas Chemical Council, a trade association of

sixty-four (64) chemical companies, adopts the state-

ment set forth in the petition for writ of certiorari filed

in this case by Exxon Corporation et al.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Texas Chemical Council endorses and adopts the

reasons set forth in the petition for writ of certiorari filed

on behalf of Exxon Corporation et al. According!y, this

petition and the petition of Exxon et al. should be granted

so that conflicts between the Fifth Circuit and this

Court’s decision in Train v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., No. 73-1742, decided April 16, 1975, as

well as among the various circuits, regarding EPA’s

statutory authority and duty to consider technological in-

5. See App. E to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in this

case by Exxon Corporation et al.

4

feasibility and related public interest factors can be

comprehensively resolved together with other pending

petitions for certiorari.®

Respecfully submitted,

DoNnaALD L. HoweELy HuGuH M. PATTERSON

VINSON, ELKINS, SEARLS, THOMAS M. PHILLIPS

CONNALLY & SMITH LARRY B. FELDCAMP

2100 First City National Baker & Botts

Bank Building 3000 One Shell Plaza

Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002

713-236-2222 713-229-1234

§. St. Joe Minerals v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 74-

i650, t'ed June 28, 1975; Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, No. 74-1542, filed June 9, 1975.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that three printed copies of the fore-

going Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been mailed

this 30th day of August, 1975, postage prepaid to:

Edmund S. Clark, Esq.

Attorney at Law

Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530

John Bonine

Office of General Counsel

Air Quality Control

Room W-509

Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460