# Amicus Curiae Brief — Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Train > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2147%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 425 U.S. 935 ## Text Russe. E. TRAIN, vena: Scop oha kes ti us Respondent, ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE BAY AREA LEAGUE OF INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS, INC. JOHN T. RONAN, Il Tuxedo;: New York 10987 H. EDWARD DUNKELBERGER, JR. THEODORE L. GARRETT . Attorneys for Amicus Curiae March 1976 Mh LINE NE RG ese A TIMED oer TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ee PTET CETTE TT ETT TE Tee 1 Reasons For Granting The Writ ............cccccncccecseces 2 PERE CORE ECE TEE TET EEOL TE EEE CLOECETE OLR 3 Appendix TABLE OF CASES Big Rivers Electric Corporation v. EPA, og ee rrr rrr Terres ee ee eee pe | Seas Oe ey Se ee g ie . “i tet page. YOLEN, ‘ PO TM NMOL ON LEGER CS, In the Supreme Court of the Mnited States October Term, 1975 No. 75-1029 KENNECOTT CopPER CORPORATION. Petitioner, Russext E. Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE BAY AREA LEAGUE OF INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS, INC. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Bay Area League of Industrial Associations, Inc. submits this brief in support of Petitioner Kennecott Cop- per Corporation. Counsel for both petitioner and respon- dent, Russell E. Train, have consented to the filing of this brief amicus by letters which have been presented to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Rule 42(2). BLURRED COPY BLEED THROUGH 2 The Bay Area League of Industrial Associations, Inc. (‘“‘BALIA’’) is an incorporated league of industrial cor- porations with manufacturing facilities located in the San Francisco Bay area. BALIA is a party to rulemaking in which the Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) has proposed formally to disapprove certain provisions of the Bay Area implementation plan solely on the grounds that it permitted ground level monitoring controls, based upon the same rationale as EPA’s disapproval of the Nevada regulations involved in this case. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT The decision below involves a question of continuing and overriding importance concerning the implementation of the Clean Air Act which should be reviewed by this Court. This case is one of several cases in which EPA has made it clear that it would disapprove state implementation plans, although the plans provide for the attainment and main- tenance of the national ambient air quality standards, if the plans do not rely upon “‘constant emission controls’ and that EPA will not permit other types of emission controls. The issues presented in this case are also before this Court in connection with previously filed petitions by a group of affected electric utilities (No. 75-774, October Term 1975) to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Big Rivers Electric Corporation v. EPA, 523 F.2d 16 (6th Cir. 1975). Because of the importance of these issues to BALIA and its members, on January 16, 1976, BALIA filed a brief amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioners Big Rivers Electric Corporation, et al.” ' A petition for a writ of certiorari to review this decision has also been filed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (No. 75-787, October Term 1975). ? In response to the two Big Rivers petitions filed in February 1976, EPA took the position that the case is moot and that the judgment (continued) 3 It is respectfully submitted that the decision below was erroneous on questions of great importance to amicus curiae and to other industries affected by state im- plementation plans. Rather than repeat here arguments which we have made previously, we will instead refer the Court to the brief amicus curiae filed by BALIA in the Big Rivers case, which appears below in the Appendix. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, and in our brief amicus in Big Rivers, which appears in the attached Appendix, a writ of certiorari should issue to review the judgment and opinion of the Ninth Circuit. Respectfully submitted, JOHN T. RONAN, III Tuxedo, New York 10987 H. EDWARD DUNKELBERGER, JR. THEODORE L. GARRETT Covington & Burling 888 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae March 1976 ? (continued) should be vacated and, in the alternative, that if the Court does not agree that the case is moot the petitions should be denied. Although we do not wish to respond here to the Government’s suggestion of mootness in the Big Rivers case, to our knowledge there has been no such suggestion in the present case. Further, EPA has made it clear that the Agency will be taking further actions to disap- prove state plans which contain optional control features. See Ap- pendix at S. BLURRED COPY ee -” ee ENE " ™ omg Say “2 AMEE = 2 NEL TERE 7 ETA a ara ral ~ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2147%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.