# Petition for Rehearing — Clean Air Coordinating Committee v. Roth Adam Fuel Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1612%3A6

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Rehearing
- **Published:** January 1, 1973
- **Citation:** 409 U.S. 1117

## Text

In THe

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Term, 1972

No. 72-243

CLEAN AIR COORDINATING COMMITTEE,
Petitioner,
vs.

| ROTH ADAM FUEL COMPANY,
| CHICAGO COAL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION,

| ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

| Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United
States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit

PETITION FOR REHEARING

The petitioner herein respectfully moves this Court for
an order (1) vacating its denial of the petition for a writ
of certiorari entered on January 8, 1973, and (2) granting
the petition.

After the petitioner submitted its briefs, the United
States, at the invitation of this Court, submitted an amicus

brief which stated that this Court should not hear this
case because a substitute federal plan was scheduled to go
into effect in 1975 close to the time that the enjoined state

andes

suggested federal plan would have gone into effect so that
there would be minimal harm. While in theory this is cor-
rect, in reality it is in error. Almost one year has passed
since the state plan was supposed to be submitted to the
federal government and there is yet no final plan of any
type from any source for the implementation of the federal
regulations regarding emissions from burning of solid fuel.
The time already lost will undoubtedly destroy all chances
of meeting any 1975 deadline. This is illustrated by recent
testimony by the Chicago Board of Edueation at a local
hearing regarding its attempts in a similar, but self im-
posed, plan begun in 1972 to convert all of its coal burning
boilers by 1975. It was pointed out that such conversions
could oceur less than five months a year because the boilers
were needed for possible cool or cold weather and during
the limited time available for conversion, industry capacity
to make conversions was limited. The homes and businesses
involved herein cannot convert except during warm weather
and the industry capacity which was found to be limited
by the school system will certainly be limited in its ability
to convert the thousands of homes and businesses involved.
Due to the state court order preventing consideration of
regulations for the federal plan, one of the three warm full
seasons before July of 1975 has been lost for people are
waiting for a final regulation to see what they are required
to do. Congress permitted review of the regulations when
they are finalized and that undoubtedly will cause the loss
of another warm season destroying all practical possibili-
ties of meeting the 1975 deadline for a plan to achieve air
quality “requisite to protect the public health.” (42 U.S.C.
§1857e-4). The amicus brief says that this was anticipated
and permitted. That is wrong. Congress did not intend the
delay of both state and federal court review to destroy all
time schedules. Under the federal act, state participation
is integral in the sequences and review of such sequences
was to be permitted only once, and that was only after

vielen

promulgation or approval of the state plan and only in the
federal court. (S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 9ist Cong., 2nd Sess.
41 [1970)).

Even if the regulations become final soon, the damage
has already been done due to the state court injunction.
Future implementation plans are forthcoming and if what
occurred is permitted to occur again, industry will not
have lead time to know and meet standards and deadlines
will be impossibilities to everyone’s serious detriment.

CONCLUSION.

For the reasons set forth above, as well as those con-
tained in the petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner
prays that this Court grant rehearing of the order of
denial, vacate that order, grant the petition and review the
judgment and opinion below.

Respectfully submitted,
Ricuarp M. Kates
Counsel for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL.

As counsel for the petitioner, I hereby certify that the
petition for rehearing is presented in good faith and is not
for delay and is restricted to the grounds specified in
Rule 58(2).

/s/ RA M. Kates
Counsel for Petitioner

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1612%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.