# Opposition Brief — City of Highland Park v. Train

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1853%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 424 U.S. 927

## Text

a
ced LCM Le, ROSAS SOR i MERE EA ROOD CeO LOIS ,

WA: Sty tae

oa cable 1 | vee)
i
MPREME COURT, U. &.
eerste | NOV 04 IRB
| CK ot RODAK 3R., CLEP
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
OcTOBER TERM, 1975.
No. 75-610

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS, Etc., ET AL.,

Petitioners,
vs.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ETC., ET AL.,

Respondents.
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR :
A WRIT OF CERTIORARL
4
BuRTON Y. WEITZENFELD,
STANLEY M. LIPNICK,
JOHN L. ROPIEQUET, ;
ARNSTEIN, GLUCK, WEITZENFELD :
& Minow, ’
75th Floor, Sears Tower,
Chicago, Illinois 60606,
Counsel for Respondents Sears, :
Roebuck and Co. and Homart
Development Co. ;
:
Gunthorp-Warren Printing Company, Chicago e Financial 6-6565 ‘

INDEX.

PAGE
Questions Presented .........cccsencrcccccccesvens 1
Statement of the Case .......ccccccccsncncccescces 2
Reasons Why the Writ Should Not Be Granted ......... 9

A. Even if This Court Reviews the Disposition of
Petitioners’ Claims Against the Administrator, Re-
view of the Dismissal of the Complaint Against the

Developers is Unwarranted .............-+5:: 9
B. The Decision Below as to the Administrator Does
Not Warrant Review by This Court ............ 10
he ate cae ka pa bp eS Aare eee 14
Appendix (under this cover)
Text of Seventh Circuit
Order Dated February 11, 1975 .............20005- Al
CITATIONS.

Cases.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136 (1967) .. 11
Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, 482 F. 2d 1301

CHE TPT OS Soak okra sac cease baessceWances 12, 13
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 475 F. 2d 968 (D. C. Cir. 1973) .. 3

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 512 F. 2d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 1975) . 12

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.
SES TO Ge a BT SP ec a 11

Oljato Chapter of the Navajo Tribe v. Train, 515 F. 2d 654
CES Ga RTO) 5 ceca hess cas ce Sikes Che ees wee 11,12

Plan For Arcadia, Inc. v. Anita Associates, 501 F. 2d 390
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1034 (1974) ...... 9,13

Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367 (1962) ............... 10, 11

ii
Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 U. S. 468
Cy 1p OPPO PETER Perr Rr tee ie ee Le 9

Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D. D. C.),
affd. per curiam, 4 E. R. C. 1815 (D. C. Cir. 1972),
aff'd by an equally divided Court sub nom. Fri v. Sierra

Club, 412 U. S. 541 (1973) .......--eeeeeees 3; 5 6, 3
Statutes.

SU, S C.. §8 TO] ob OG... kai ce ies hens si vave yes 1,6, 12
Ete Ga 2 Ee neers wep ee er Ee Te ho eo ee 10
y Ba Waa os | re eye ee ee eer eee 1,6,12
, oie Bake P| ree ewrey oe E erry co. eee Ty 1, 6
Clean Air Act

Section 110, 42 U. S.C. § 1857c-5 ...........--6-- 4

Section 304, 42 U. S. C. § 1857h-2 ............--

I cake as ce een aaa eke Cake 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13

Section 307, 42 U. S. C. § 1857h-5 ..........---. 1,72

Agriculture-Environmental Consumer Protection Appro-
priations Act, P. L. 93-563, 88 Stat. 1822 (Dec. 31,

|) Pee re rT Te ee eT ee SE ee Soe eee 3
Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of
1974, P. L. 93-319, 88 Stat. 246 (June 22,1974) .... 4
Regulations.
39 Fed. Reg. 7270 (Feb. 25, 1974) ....----+ee+eeees 3,4
39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (Dec. 5, 1974) ....----++e-eeee
40 Fed. Reg. 28064 (July 3, 1975) .....-----ee eee 3
Other.
Conference Report to Accompany H. R. 14368, H. Rep.
No. 93-1085 (93rd Cong., 2d Sess., June 6, 1974) ... 4

6 BNA Environment Reporter, Current Developments... 3

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1975.

No. 75-610.

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS, ETC., ET AL.,

Petitioners,
VS.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ETC., ET AL.,
Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.

1. As to Respondent Train, the questions presented are
whether Petitioners may evade the procedural notice require-
ment of Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1857h-
2, by asserting District Court jurisdiction under ae swe &
§§ 1331, 1361 and 5 U.S. C. §§ 701 et seq., even though the
special Clean Air Act provision was an adequate remedy in the
circumstances of this case for the administrative inaction alleged
by Petitioners, and whether a petition for review was properly
dismissed.

2. No basis for reviewing the dismissal of the Complaint
against these Respondents is shown by the Petition.

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This Brief in Opposition is filed in behalf of Respondents
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and its subsidiary Homart Develop-
ment Co., the developers of the shopping center referred to in
the Petition.’ The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s
judgment dismissing in its entirety a four count Complaint
against 17 defendants, and dismissed a petition for review of
an administrative regulation which had been consolidated with
the appeal at Petitioners’ instance. These Respondents, the
Developers, were not parties to the petition for review, and no
relief was sought against them in Counts II, III or IV of the
Complaint. Accordingly, this Brief in Opposition is devoted to

the reasons why this Court should not review the Seventh
Circuit’s disposition of Count I of the Complaint.

The Complaint did not and could not allege that the Re-
spondent Developers were violating or threatening to violate
any regulation issued under the Clean Air Act. It demanded
an injunction against Developers, not on the theory that they
had committed or threatened to commit a wrong, but on the
theory that certain allegedly overdue regulations, when promul-
gated, might retroactively require Developers to obtain an EPA
air quality license for their construction which had already
started.

According to Count I of the Complaint, the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (“the Administrator”
hereinafter) had failed to perform a non-discretionary duty
under the Clean Air Act—a duty to promulgate regulations by
July 31, 1972, which would prevent air pollution by so-called
“indirect sources” and which would prevent so-called “significant
deterioration” of air quality. By the time the Complaint was
filed, November 30, 1973, the Administrator had already been

1. Originally, the developers were Sears and Northbrook Court
Associates, a partnership between Homart and another company.
Homart has recently succeeded to the interest of the partnership.

acer Nie Bie 3 dD she’

3

ordered by the District of Columbia Circuit to promulgate any
“indirect source” regulation which he considered necessary’ and
had already been ordered by another District Court to “exercise
his expertise” on the subject of “significant deterioration” and
take whatever final action he considered necessary.’

While the case was pending before the District Court, the
Administrator promulgated an “indirect source” regulation,’ and
while it was pending before the Seventh Circuit on appeal, he
promulgated a “significant deterioration” regulation.’ Neither
regulation affects Developers’ center. The “indirect source”
regulation applied only to projects on which construction
was commenced after January 1, 1975;° and the “significant
deterioration” regulation does not apply to pollutants emitted
by automobiles.”

In affirming the dismissal of Count I of the Complaint, the
Seventh Circuit first considered Petitioners’ claim that the Dis-

2. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vy. Environmental
Protection Agency, 475 F. 2d 968 (D. C. Cir. 1973).

3. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D. D. C.),
aff'd per curiam, 4 ERC 1815 (D. C. Cir. 1972), aff'd by an equally
divided Court sub nom. Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U. S. 541 (1973).

4. 39 Fed. Reg. 7270 (Feb. 25, 1974).
5. 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (Dec. 5, 1974).

6. The regulation was subsequently amended in respects not here
material and, most recently, suspended indefinitely. 40 Fed. Reg.
28064 (July 3, 1975). In the Administrator's appropriation for fiscal
1975, Congress prohibited the expenditure of any funds to administer
it. Section 510, Agriculture-Environmental Consumer Protection Ap-
propriations Act, P. L. 93-563, 88 Stat. 1822 (Dec. 31, 1974).
Additionally, Congress is actively considering amending the Clean
Air Act to delineate the Administrator’s “indirect source” obliga-
tions. See, 6 BNA Environment Reporter, Current Developments,
at 1004 (Oct. 10, 1975).

7. The Administrator’s rationale for excluding automobile-related
pollutants from the “significant deterioration” regulation is stated in
39 Fed. Reg. at 42511 (Dec. 5, 1974). The “significant deteriora-
tion” or “nondegradation” controversy is also now receiving Con-
gressional attention. 6 BNA Environment Reporter, Current Devel-
opments at 1009 (Oct. 17, 1975). It appears that consideration is
being given to a possible amendment to the Act which might clarify
the Administrator’s “nondegradation” responsibilities with respect to
automobile-related pollutants. /d., at 548, 549 (Aug. 1, 1975).

4

trict Court should have compelled the Administrator to promul-
gate an “indirect source” regulation retroactively applicable to
Developers’ project. The Court noted that the Administrator had
promulgated an “indirect source” regulation, and that Petitioners
sought adjudication of the validity of a provision in that regula-
tion exempting “indirect sources” which, like Developers’ center,
had commenced construction prior to the regulation’s effective
date (519 F. 2d at 688; App. 20).* The Seventh Circuit held
that such a provision defining the scope of a regulation is an
integral part of the regulation itself, and that judicial review
of the sufficiency of the Administrator’s stated reasons for the
exemption provision (39 Fed. Reg. at 7272-3) would require
examination of the administrative record which was not before
it on the appeal from the District Court’s judgment (519 F. 2d
at 689; App. 22). It therefore held that the exemption provision
could not be reviewed in the action Petitioners filed in the Dis-
trict Court, but only by a petition for review of the regulation
filed in a Court of Appeals (/bid.). The Court noted that Peti-
tioners had in fact filed such a petition for review of the promul-
gated “indirect source” regulation, which was pending in the
District of Columbia Circuit where their claims would be
decided in due course (/bid.).® The Petition does not question
this part of the Seventh Circuit’s disposition of Count I.

Turning to Petitioners’ Court I “significant deterioration”
claim against the Administrator (519 F. 2d at 689-690; App.

8. The Appendix cited above and elsewhere in this Brief is the
Appendix to the Petition.

9. The Seventh Circuit did not reach the Developers’ contention,
with which the Government agreed, that both the effective date of the
po and the exemption of shopping centers which, like De-
velopers’, commenced construction prior te that effective date, had
been ratified by Section 4(b) of the Energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act of 1974, P. L. 93-319, tat, 246 (June

22, 1974), which amended Section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act,
among other ways, by addition of new sub-sections (2)(C) and
(D), 42 U. S. C. §§ 1857c-5(c) (2)(C), (D). See, Conference
Report to Accompany H. R. 14368, H. Rep. No. 93-1085, at page
40 (93rd Cong., 2d Sess., June 6, 1974).

5

23), the Seventh Circuit held that Petitioners could not main-
tain Count I to compel the Administrator to promulgate a
“significant deterioration” regulation because Petitioners had
failed to comply with the Clean Air Act. Section 304(a) (2) of
the Act confers upon the District Courts jurisdiction of actions
to compel the Administrator to perform a non-discretionary act
or duty, but Section 304(b)(2) specifically prohibits com-
mencement of any such action without first giving 60 days prior
notice to the Administrator. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1857h-2(a) (2), (b)
(2). Petitioners “made no attempt whatsoever to comply with
the notice provision” (519 F. 2d at 691; App. 24-25), as the
Petition itself admits at page 6, and the Seventh Circuit held
this defect fatal to Petitioners’ allegation of right under the
special Clean Air Act provision.

The Petition, at page 6, asserts that the notice required by
Section 304 was not given because Petitioners sought prelimi-
nary injunctive relief. It does not, however, advise this Court of
the uncontroverted facts pertinent to Petitioners’ implication
that, when the Complaint was filed, they faced an unforeseen
situation:

1. In January, 1972, the Administrator publicly announced
that he would not promulgate regulations to prevent “significant
deterioration” of air quality.’° Petitioners did nothing.

2. Although Paragraph 40 of the Complaint alleges that the
Administrator had a duty to promulgate “significant deteriora-
tion” regulations no later than July 31, 1972, that date came
and went, but still Petitioners did nothing.

3. Developers’ plan to constiuct the shopping center was
publicly announced on January 19, 1973," and Petitioners not
only knew of it, but admittedly commissioned a traffic study of

10. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 344 F. Supp. at 254.

11. Note 11 and accompanying text at page 8 of the Memo-
randum submitted to the Seventh Circuit by Petitioners in support of
their motion (which was denied) for a temporary injunction pend-
ing appeal.

6

. the proposed preject-which-was completed-on. March 13, 1973.”
Still they did not assert their claim that the Administrator was
in default of a duty to promulgate a regulation.

4. Petitioners’ inaction continued until the Complaint was
filed, on November 30, 1973, by which date Developers had
millions invested in the shopping center with millions more
committed, and had commenced work on the project.

On these uncontroverted facts, no claim could properly be
made that the 60-day notice requirement of Section 304
rendered that remedy for administrative inaction inadequate in
the circumstances of this case.

The Seventh Circuit also considered Petitioners’ claims that
mandamus against the Administrator or its equivalent were
available to them under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1361 or 5 U.S.C.
§§ 701 ef seq. It held that these other remedies were not avail-
able to these Petitioners for the specific reason that they are
available only when there is no other adequate remedy, while
the direct remedy of Section 304 of the Clean Air Act was an
adequate remedy in the circumstances of this case for the ad-
ministrative inaction Petitioners had alleged (519 F. 2d at 691-
692; App. 26-28). These holdings made it unnecessary for the
Court to consider Petitioners’ assertion of need for a second
order by a second District Court requiring the Administrator
to do what he had already been required to do in the Sierra
Club case, note 3 supra.

Having disposed of Count I as to the Administrator, the
Seventh Circuit went on to hold that Count I contained no basis
for enjoining Developers (519 F. 2d at 693; App. 30). The
Petition does not discuss the lower court’s disposition of Count
I as to Developers, and advances no reason why it should be
reviewed by this Court, even assuming, arguendo, that re-
view is undertaken of the dismissal of Count I against the
Administrator.

12. Id., notes 14 and 15 at page 9.

7

"While the Respondent Developers were not parties to the
petition for review which the Seventh Circuit dismissed, they
are aware of the circumstances under which, and the reason
why it was consolidated with the appeal from the District Court's
dismissal of the Complaint.

The petition for review itself suggested that it be consoli-
dated with the appeal “since both causes involve identical facts
and identical issues”. Shortly after it was filed, certain third
persons moved for transfer to another Circuit where other peti- ;
tions for review of the same regulation were already pending.
Petitioners’ response was a memorandum in which they again
represented to the Seventh Circuit that “identical issues of fact
and law are raised” by their petition for review and by their
appeal.

The Seventh Circuit took Petitioners at their word and, on
February 7, 1975, two weeks before scheduled oral argument
of the appeal, entered an order denying transfer and consolidat-

ing the petition for review with the appeal, adhering to the '
date already set for oral argument, all as Petitioners had re- ¢
quested, and stating that: {

“Petitioners have represented in their Petition for Review }
and Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Transfer :
that the consolidated cases present identical substantive F
issues on appeal.”

Requests for reconsideration of the order of consolidation
were filed, by the Respondent Developers among others, point-
ing out that an appeal from a District Court dismissal of a Com-
plaint and a petition for review of an administrative regulation
necessarily have different records and raise different issues, and
that the administrative record necessary for review of the regula-
tion for alleged inadequacy was not yet before the Court and
could not be brought before it by the date set for oral argu-
ment of the appeal with which the petition for review had
been consolidated. The Seventh Circuit, on February 11, 1975,
not only declined to reconsider its order of consolidation, but

FIRELOGS BEE PRETEEN, A

:
;
¥
:
i
.
?
i
i
é
&

8

did so in terms which dispelled any conceivable lingering doubt
of the terms on which consolidation had been ordered at Peti-
tioners’ suggestion and on the basis of their repeated representa-
tions that they sought to raise by their petition for review only
issues “identical” to those already raised in their appeal:
“This Court based its order [of consolidation] on the
fact that Petitioner-appellants intended to raise identical
substantive issues in its petition for review as it has in its
brief in [the appeal] . . . . This Court’s February 7, 1975
order of consolidation was intended to limit the scope of
Petitioner's petition for review to the issues raised in [the

appeal].”
That order concluded by advising Petitioners and everyone else,
in no uncertain terms, that the Seventh Circuit understood that
Petitioners did not wish to raise “the issue of adequacy of the
EPA regulations”, and had limited the scope of their petition
for review to the Administrator’s failure to act alleged in Count
I of the Complaint.” Petitioners acquiesced.

The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition for review on the
ground that the Administrator's alleged failure to act, the issue
to which the petition for review had been limited, could not be
challenged by petition for review but only by action commenced
in the District Court, and that such an action must be brought
under and in compliance with Section 304 of the Act where,
as here, it is an adequate remedy.

13. For the Court’s convenience, the full text of the Seventh Cir-
cuit’s order of February 11, 1975, is set forth in the Appendix which
follows this Brief in Opposition.

REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.

A. Even if This Court Reviews the Disposition of Petitioners’
} Claims Against the Administrator, Review of the Dismissal
of the Complaint Against the Developers Is Unwarranted.

It is undisputed that Developers have neither violated nor
threatened to violate any regulation issued under the Clean Air
Act, and it is more than time for their role in this litigation to
come to an end, whether or not the dispute goes on between
Petitioners and the Government. There is no reason why this
Court should review the dismissal of the Complaint which sought
an injunction against the Developers. The courts are in harmony
that injunctions do not lie against private citizens in the
circumstances of this case.

In a case with remarkable factual similarity, the Ninth Cir-
cuit reached the same result as was reached below as to De-
velopers, affirming dismissal of a Complaint for injunction
against shopping center construction which allegedly should
have been but was not regulated under the Clean Air Act. Plan
tor Arcadia, Inc. v. Anita Associates, 501 F. 2d 390 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1034 (1974). The Court there
held that private parties may not be enjoined under the Act
except from violating regulations which have been issued and
which are in effect.

oF

al at

Even if the Administrator is ultimately held to have com-
mitted a wrong, the dismissal of the Complaint against De-
velopers would still be right. Petitioners sought to enjoin De-
velopers’ lawful use of their own land as a “remedy” for the
alleged wrongs of the Administrator. It has long been settled
that no one has a right to a “remedy” against the lawful con-
duct of another. Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 U. S.
468, 483 (1937).

For these reasons, this Court should not review the decision
below affirming dismissal of Count I of the Complaint against
the Respondent Developers.

I oar’

Ee

10

B. The Decision Below as to the Administrator Does Not
Warrant Review by This Court.

Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the decision below does
not ignore the saving clause contained in Section 304(e), 42
U. S. C. § 1857h-2(e), and does not hold that the special
remedy for administrative inaction provided by Section 304(a)
of the Act is exclusive in all cases:

“.. . the saving provision [Section 304(e) of the Clean
Air Act], expressing the general intention of Congress not
to disturb existing rights to seek relief, does not have the
affirmative effect of removing conditions which existing
law imposes upon the exercise of those rights. . . . We are
not holding that if the remedy provided by the statute were
inadequate in the circumstances of a particular case, other
remedies would be unavailable.” 519 F. 2d at 693;
App. 29.

The Seventh Circuit gave effect to the Section 304(e) sav-
ing clause by carefully considering each and every basis on
which Petitioners attempted to maintain their District Court
action against the Administrator without giving the notice which
would have entitled them to proceed under Section 304(a)(2).
Wherever it turned, it found a right to proceed conditioned
upon the inadequacy of the special statutory procedure, which
was adequate in this case but not followed by Petitioners, and
its decision so holding does not conflict with the decisions
cited in the Petition.”*

Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367 (1962), decided that the special
provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act for review by
habeas corpus of an administrative decision of forfeiture of citi-
zenship, under the circumstances of that case, did not preclude
forms of review otherwise available. It did not decide that other
forms of review were available in all circumstances. While that

14. “The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special
statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court
specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any
applicable form of legal action. . . 5 U.S.C. § 703.

ll

Act’s special habeas corpus remedy was-not held inadequate

in so many words, its inadequacy in the circumstances of the

case is explicit in this Court’s statement that resort in that
‘ case to habeas corpus would have required:

“

. that a native of this country living abroad must
travel thousands of miles, be arrested, and go to jail in
order to attack an administrative finding that he is not a
citizen of the United States.” 369 U. S. 375.

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136 (1967), de-
cided that the special provision of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, as amended, for review of certain regulations
promulgated under the Act had not by silence precluded forms
of review otherwise available. It did not decide that forms of
review other than provided specifically by the Drug Act were
available in all circumstances. While the Drug Act’s special
review procedure was not specifically held inadequate by
Abbott, its inadequacy in the circumstances presented is implicit
in this Court’s opinion, 387 U. S. 152-154.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F. 2d
692 (D. C. Cir. 1975), held that Section 505(a) of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, which parallels Section
304(a) of the Clean Air Act, does not oust the District Courts
of subject matter jurisdiction to award other available remedies
to compel the Administrator to perform a duty. The decision
considered only the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction
to award such other remedies as might be available, 510 F. 2d ;
at 698-699, and neither holds that other remedies are available
in all cases nor delineates the circumstances in which they
are available.

PE eee

The lack of conflict between the decision below and the views
of the District of Columbia Circuit is demonstrated by a more
recent decision by that Court which Petitioners chose to rele- :
gate to a footnote. Oljato Chapter of the Navajo Tribe v. Train,
515 F. 2d 654 (D. C. Cir. 1975), decided that the particular
relief there sought could be obtained by filing a Section 307 4

12

petition for review in the Court of Appeals, and not by filing an
action in a District Court. In the course of so deciding, the Court
declined to consider the possibility of District Court jurisdiction
under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, “[blecause we find that petitioners
do not lack a forum in which to bring their action. . . .” 515
F. 2d at 658 n. 5. The Court went on to state its view that
the Administrative Procedure Act is an independent source of
jurisdiction “of the ‘gap-filling’ variety”, 515 F. 2d at 663, and
then emphasized and re-emphasized its view that independent
“gap-filling” jurisdiction is conferred by the A. P. A. only when
there is no other adequate judicial remedy. 515 F. 2d at 664.
These views are consistent with those expressed in Anaconda
Company v. Ruckelshaus, 482 F. 2d 1301, 1304 (10th Cir.
1973), and are precisely the basis on which the Seventh Circuit
rejected Petitioners’ effort to proceed under 28 U.S. C. § 1331
and the Administrative Procedure Act. There is no conflict.

In affirming the dismissal of Count I of the Complaint, the
Seventh Circuit had no occasion to consider and did not con-
sider the scope of review available in the District Court in a
Section 304 action. While Petitioners assert that such actions
may not encompass alleged abuse of discretion, the District of
Columbia Circuit has indicated that they do encompass alleged
abuse of discretion. Oljato Chapter, supra, 515 F. 2d at 663
n. 14. In any event, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to engage
in idle speculation as to the Seventh Circuit’s possible decision
on this question in the future. If and when it decides this ques-
tion contrary to the view of the District of Columbia Circuit,
there will be time enough for this Court to consider whether
the conflict is of such moment as to merit this Court’s attention.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 512 F. 2d 1351 (D. C. Cir. 1975), decided
that the authority to award attorney's fees conferred by Section
304 of the Clean Air Act is limited to District Court actions
brought pursuant to that section, and does not include actions
initiated under Section 307 by filing a petition for review with a

13

Court of Appeals. The decision below does not remotely touch
upon this question.

Just as there is no conflict among the federal courts concern-
ing the circumstances in which the notice required by Section
304 must be given, so, contrary to Petitioners’ contention, there
is no conflict between or confusion among the courts concerning
the respective jurisdiction of the District Courts and the Courts
of Appeals. The District Courts may, in appropriate cases, order
the Administrator to act; once he has acted, review of the
“adequacy of his regulations” must be sought by petition for
review to the Court of Appeals.”®

When the Complaint was filed, no regulations had been
promulgated. During the pendency of the case, they were
promulgated but not to Petitioners’ satisfaction. Petitioners’ chal-
lenge to the “indirect source” regulation has been raised by a
petition for review now pending before the District of Columbia
Circuit. Their petition for review of the “significant deteriora-
tion” regulation filed before the Seventh Circuit was at their
request limited to an issue not cognizable by a petition for
review and submitted for decision without the administrative
record. Hence it had to be dismissed. No real jurisdictional
dilemma under the Clean Air Act exists and review of the
dismissal of Count I is not warranted.

15. Plan For Arcadia, supra; Anaconda Company v. Ruckel-
shaus, 482 F. 2d 1301, 1304 (10th Cir. 1973); Compare Sierra
Club v. Ruckelshaus, supra note 3, with the subsequent order in
the same case cited and discussed in note 1 at page 4 of the Petition.

at

SIAN

SON EIA NERS BED WII ELLIO ERE FEE EES

Zoe

LOR REPS AE TN FILET AE PET Y

14

CONCLUSION.

Respondents Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Homart Develop-
ment Co. respectfully pray that the Petition be denied as to
the Seventh Circuit's decision affirming dismissal of Count I of
the Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

BuRTON Y. WEITZENFELD,
STANLEY M. LIPNICK,
JOHN L. ROPIEQUET,
ARNSTEIN, GLUCK, WEITZENFELD
& MINow,
75th Floor, Sears Tower,
Chicago, Illinois 60606,
Counsel for Respondents Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Homart
Development Co.

5 Rc AN, FTL LE IEE

Al

APPENDIX.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,
For the Seventh Circuit,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

February 11, 1975.

Before
Hon. WALTER J. CuMMINGS, Circuit Judge
Hon. WiLBur F. PELL, Jr., Circuit Judge

THE City OF HIGHLAND PARK, ET AL., |
Plaintiffs-appellants,

No. 74-1271 vs.
Appeal from _ the

RussELL E. TRAIN, ET AL., vere ee yr
Defendants-appellees, trict Court for te ;
Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern :
Tue City oF HIGHLAND Park, ETC., i Division.
aoe Petitioners, No. 73 C 3027
No. 75-1006 vs. Petition for Review of 4

an Order of the
Russe. E. Train, Administrator and United States En-
U. §S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC- vironmental Protec-

TION AGENCY, tion Agency.
Respondents,

FO

SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,
Intervenors. ;

This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor’s “Motion
For Reconsideration Of The Order Granting Consolidation of

NS LEN ee tI ME ete oo eee ee

A2

Case Nos. 1271 and 75-1006”, and the “Motion of Defendants-
appellees Northbrook Court Associates and Sears, Roebuck
and Co. For Reconsideration Of Order Of Consolidation”.

On February 7, 1975 this Court ordered the consolidation
of the above appeals. This Court based its order on the fact that
Petitioner-appellants intended to raise identical substantive
issues in its petition for review as it has in its brief in 74-1271,
filed herein on September 14, 1975. In light of the pending
Motion to Dismiss Appeal 74-1271, which is to be taken with
the case, it appears that Petitioners have attempted to safe-
guard their jurisdictional ground by filing the petition for
review in 75-1006. Without making any comment on the pro-
priety of the action employed by Petitioners in the instant ap-
peals, consolidation of the two cases is in the interest of judicial
economy. This Court’s February 7, 1975 order of consolida-
tion was intended to limit the scope of Petitioner’s petition for
review to the issues raised in 74-1271.

Intervenors have indicated their intent to raise the issue of
adequacy of the EPA regulations promulgated December 5,
1974, 39 Fed. Reg. 42509. Because this issue is not within the
scope of the present consolidated appeals and because Inter-
venors have been granted leave to intervene in Indiana-Ken-
tucky Electric Corp., et. al. v. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 74-2055, in which case intervenors will have the op-
portunity to challenge the adequacy of the regulations in ques-
tion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Order
of this Court granting intervention be, and the same is hereby,
VACATED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1853%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.