# Petition — TEXAS CHEMICAL CHEMICAL COUNCIL v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Nos. 75-325, 75-324, 75-326) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0962%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1975 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0962%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.