Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

District of Columbia v. Train

Citation: 6 ELR 20420
No. No. 75-1887, 533 F.2d 1250/8 ERC 1909/(D.C. Cir., 04/06/1976)

A consent agreement between EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA), which alters previously existing compliance schedules for two GSA heating plants in Washington, D.C., is not an action subject to direct review in the court of appeals under § 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. On petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the court reaffirms its earlier dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner mistakenly argues that the agreement constitutes an implementation plan approval under § 110 of the statute. The consent agreement mechanism was introduced by EPA as the principal method for ensuring federal agency compliance with state pollution control standards throughout the nation. The instant agreement represents an attempt by the EPA Administrator to resolve a dispute between the District of Columbia and the GSA over the latter's refusal to comply with a revised compliance schedule previously issued by the District. As such, it is clearly an extra-statutory mechanism rather than an approval of an implementation plan compliance schedule under § 110. It therefore is not subject to direct appellate review pursuant to § 307(b)(1).

Counsel for Petitioner
Louis P. Robbins, Acting Corporation Counsel
John C. Salyer
Richard G. Wise, Asst. Corporation Counsel
District Building
14th & E Streets, NW
Washington DC 20004
(202) 629-5974

Counsel for Respondents
Edmund B. Clark
Raymond Mushal
Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530
(202) 739-2773

Before: WRIGHT and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.