Amicus Brief — Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown

SS IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 75-909

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Vv Petitioner

EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

No. 75-960

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

v. Petitioner

STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 75-1050

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ea rel.

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

v. Petitioner

RUSSELL F. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

No. 75-1055

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Vv. Petitioner

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH, FOURTH,

AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

and

BRIEF OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, INC., AS AMICUS CURIAE

Davip G. HAWKINS

Attorney for Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc.

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, INC.

917 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 737-5000

a i a ae en endinatenendiieinetmmnneeel

WILSON - EPES PRINTING Co.. INC. - RE 7-6002 - WASHINGTON. D. C. 20001

INDEX

Page

Motion For Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae ............... 2

Ee FD GI crrerictestierssennszntcnnninninnninenascncisatnnneasinine 6

IS IIIT cldinceniapiieiiaenondaiaensginenidaiaaatedon 6

I viccithiinctinnanienenieinapiimaiinciininnnninin 7

Conclusion 7

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 75-909

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN CY,

Petitioner

Vv.

EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

No. 75-960

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 75-1050

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL.

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

Petitioner

Vv.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2

No. 75-1055

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH, FOURTH,

AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC)

hereby respectfully moves for leave to file the attached

brief amicus curiae in these consolidated cases. Request

for consent was made of all parties in these cases. The

following parties granted consent: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA); District of Columbia; Prince

William County, Virginia; City of Alexandria, Virginia;

the California respondents in No. 75-909; and the peti-

tioners-intervenors in No. 75-1055. The following parties

refused consent: the Commonwealth of Virginia; City of

Fairfax, Virginia; and the State of Arizona. The State

of Maryland did not respond to the request for consent.

The interest of NRDC in these cases arises from its

efforts on behalf of its members to promote the develop-

ment and implementation of air pollution control pro-

grams adequate to protect public health and welfare.

NRDC is a national membership organization dedi-

cated to the preservation and defense of the human en-

vironment and natural resources of the United States.

NRDC’s members currently total over 22,000 individuals,

residing in all States and territories (excluding Amer-

ican Samoa) of the United States and in several other

nations. NRDC is a non-profit corporation organized

under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at

15 West 44th Street, New York, New York, 917 15th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and 2345 Yale Street

Palo Alto, California. Many of NRDC’s members live in

areas of the United States which routinely experience

levels of air pollution harmful to health.

These cases involve a challenge to regulations adopted

by EPA to reduce air pollution resulting from the use

of motor vehicles. NRDC has been active in promoting

this objective since the passage of the Clean Air Amend-

ments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U.S.C. 1857, et seg. In

1971 NRDC commented on EPA regulations for the de-

velopment of State air pollution control plans. In 1972

NRDC reviewed plans submitted by the States and com-

mented to EPA that such plans failed to adequately con-

trol motor vehicle air pollution. When EPA approved

such inadequate State plans in 1972, NRDC petitioned

for judicial review and prevailed in court. NRDC v. EPA

475 F.2d 968 (D. C. Cir. 1973). To assist citizen par-

ticipation in the development of State programs to con-

trol vehicular air pollution NRDC published in January

1973 a citizen’s manual: Transportation Controls for

Clean Air. When the States submitted plans in 1973 pro-

viding for control of motor vehicle air pollution NRDC

submitted comments to the States and to EPA. When EPA

proposed its regulations for such programs in 1973 NRDC

again submitted comments. The regulations under chal-

lenge here are a product of this process in which NRDC,

on behalf of its members, has had a deep and continuing

interest.

4

In these cases the various parties are asserting the

governmental interests of the federal and State com-

ponents of our constitutional system. NRDC seeks leave

to file the attached brief amicus curiae, adopting the posi-

tion and arguments of the petitioners-intervenors in No.

75-1055, in order to present a position which reflects not

only the interests of the State and federal governments

but also the interests of the people of the United States,

in particular, NRDC’s individual members, who are ex-

posed to harmful levels of air pollution. These persons

are the intended beneficiaries of the Clean Air Act. The

outcome of these cases could have a significant effect on

their health and welfare.

Respectfully submitted,

Davip G. HAWKINS

Attorney for Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc.

917 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

(202) 737-5000

September 10, 1976

IN THE

Siren Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

» No. 75-909

} ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

No. 75-960

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

V.

STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 75-1050

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL.

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

y Petitioner

V.

ee!

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

6

No. 75-1055

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH, FOURTH,

AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITS

BRIEF OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, INC., AS AMICUS CURIAE

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

As more fully set forth in the attached motion for

leave to file this brief, the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC), on behalf of its 22,000 members, has

been active in the development of the EPA regulations

under challenge in these cases. The State-federal conflict

which has developed over these air pollution control regu-

lations has prevented any significant action to reduce

vehicular air pollution. As a result, many of NRDC’s

members residing in the States represented in these cases

continued to be exposed to air pollution which is harmful

to health. In NRDC’s opinion if the EPA action is found

unconstitutional, their members and the rest of the

people of the United States will be exposed to harmful

pollution levels for many more years.

7

ARGUMENT

In NRDC’s opinion EPA’s actions are authorized by

the Clean Air Act and do not violate the Constitution.

NRDC endorses and adopts as its position before this

Court the Brief for Petitioners-Intervenors in No. 75-

1055, and the argument set forth therein.

The vehicular pollution control programs addressed by

EPA’s regulations in these cases require significant

changes in transportation habits. States have been reluc-

tant to make these changes in the past. NRDC believes

that this reluctance will continue unless each State is

convinced that other States with similar pollution prob-

lems will make equal efforts to clean the air. The actions

of the federal government which are challenged in these

cases help to assure each State that the necessary efforts

will be made by all States with severe pollution prob-

lems.

CONCLUSION

NRDC requests this Court to reverse the decisions of

the Fourth and Ninth Circuits below and to reverse in

part the decision of the D.C. Circuit below.

Respectfully submitted,

Davip G. HAWKINS

Attorney for Natural Resources

Defense Council

as amicus curiae

September 10, 1976