Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. Costle

No. 80-1591 (6th Cir. September 19, 1980)

The Sixth Circuit Vacates an injunction issued by the district court prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations, ruling that only the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear the case. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, which vests the district courts with jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the Administrator's failure to take any non-discretionary action, was improperly relied upon by the district court as a source of jurisdiction. That provision does not authorize a district court to review nationally applicable regulations on the rationale that they are invalid because of the Administrator's failure to promulgate other sets of regulations beforehand. On the contrary, the instant case is a direct challenge to the substantive validity of the warranty regulations and as such is required by § 307(b)(1) of the Act to be heard only in the D.C. Circuit.

Counsel for Appellant
David E. Dearing, Peter R. Steenland, Angus C. MacBeth
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-5245

Counsel for Appellees
Theodore Souris
Bodman, Longley & Dahling
34th Fl., Renaissance Center, Detroit MI 48243
(313) 259-7777

William H. Crabtree
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n
311 New Center Bldg., Detroit MI 48202
(313) 872-4311

Before Martin, Jones, and Peck, JJ.

[11 ELR 20069]

The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "Administrator") appeals from a judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan permanently enjoining the enforcement of the Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulation, 45 Fed. Reg. 34829 (May 22, 1980). Because we hold that § 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7601(b)(1) vests in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction of petitions to review the validity of the performance warranty regulation, we vacate the district court's injunction and order the transfer of thi case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Clean Air Act gives the Administrator the authority to require automobile manufacturers to provide performance warranties on automobile emission parts for certain automobiles once he has determined that certain conditions are met.¹ In § 207(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7541(c)(3), the Clean Air Act requires² the Administrator to issue "maintenance instruction" regulations which require reference to the "parts certification" regulations³ of § 207(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(2). Section 207(a)(2) provides for the mandatory issuance of regulations on parts certification by August 7, 1977.

II.

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of America (the "Association") filed a complaint in district court alleging that the Act required the Administrator to promulgate parts certification and maintenance instruction regulations prior to the warranty regulation. The Association sought injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the Administrator's enforcement of the warranty regulation. Additionally, the Association sought a writ of mandamus to require the issuance of parts certification regulations. The district court held that the Administrator must issue parts certification and maintenance regulations before he can enforce the performance warranty requirements of § 207(b) and enjoined enforcement of the performance warranty regulations until the model year after the parts certification and maintenance regulations are issued.

The Administrator argues that § 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), grants exclusive jurisdiction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Section 307(b)(1) provides in relevant part:

A petition for review of the Administrator in promulgating . . . any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated . . . under [the Clean Air Act] . . . may be filed only in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The Administrator argues that the performance warranty regulations promulgated by him in May 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 34829 et seq., was a national regulation within the ambit of 307(b)(1). Cf. Lubrizol Corp. v. Train, 547 F.2d 310 [7 ELR 20106] (6th Cir. 1976). (The district court does not have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1970), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a challenge to regulations requiring the registration of motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives.)

The district court in the instant case found jurisdiction pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704 et seq., and federal matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and the citizen suit provision of Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604. However, the district court did not address the applicability of § 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act.

III.

Congress limited jurisdiction for review of national regulations promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to the Clean Air Act to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Association argues that the instant action is not for review of the Administrator's issuance of performance warranty regulations. We hold that the action in the district court was an attempt to review the agency's issuance of performance warranty regulations, and that this case should be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

[11 ELR 20070]

The Association's argument in support of the district court's injunction has two parts, first that Section 304 of the Clean Air Act⁴ permits:

any person to commence a civil action . . . against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under . . . [the Clean Air Act] which is not dicretionary with the Administrator . . . District Courts shall have jurisdiction . . . to order the Administrator to perform such act or duty.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the Association argues that Section 304 confers jurisdiction upon the district court. The Association also argues that once the district court has jurisdiction to order the Administrator to perform a nondiscretionary duty (pursuant to § 304) the court must be allowed to fully effectuate the rights of the Association by enjoining enforcement of the performance warranty regulations. These arguments confuse the issue. The district court reviewed the performance warranty regulations when it decided that the parts certification and maintenance regulations were necessary preceding conditions for the issuance of the performance warranty regulations. It is that review or any other review of the regulation which is barred by § 307(b)(1).

The district court can fully and completely grant relief for the failure of the Administrator to issue mandatory regulations pursuant to § 207(a)(2) and § 207(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act by ordering the Administrator to issue parts certification and maintenance instruction regulations. If it is necessary to enjoin the enforcement of the performance warranty regulations or to consider their viability, because the performance warranty regulations are invalid without proper parts certification and maintenance regulations, then such actions must be brought pursuant to § 307(b)(1) in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This view most appropriately effectuates the purpose of the Act. Lubrizol Corp. v. Train, 547 F.2d 310 [7 ELR 20106] (6th Cir. 1976).

Accordingly, we hold the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the performance warranty regulations. The district court's order enjoining enforcement of the performance warranty regulation is vacated, and the case is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The mandate shall issue five days after this order is filed with the Clerk of this Court.

1. The Act provides in relevant part:

Testing methods and procedures

(b)If the Administrator determines that (i) there are available testing methods and procedures to ascertain whether, when in actual use throughout its useful life . . . each vehicle and engine to which regulations under section 7521 of this title apply complies with the emission standards of such regulations, (ii) such methods and procedures are in accordance with good engineering practices, and (iii) such methods and procedures are reasonably capable of being correlated with tests conducted under section 7525(a)(1) of this title, then —

(1) he shall establish such methods and procedures by regulation, and

(2) at such time as he determines that inspection facilities or equipment are available for purposes of carrying out testing methods and procedures established under paragraph (1), he shall prescribe regulations which shall require manufacturers to warrant the emission control device or system of each new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which a regulation under section 7521 of this title applies and which is manufactured in a model years beginning after the Administrator first prescribes. . . .

42 U.S.C. § 7541(b)(Emphasis added.)

2. (3)(A) The manufacturer shall furnish with each new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine written instructions for the proper maintenance and use of the vehicle or engine by the ultimate purchaser and such instructions shall correspond to regulations which the Administrator shall promulgate. The manufacturer shall provide in boldface type on the first page of the written maintenance instructions notice that maintenance, replacement, or repair of the emission control devides and systems may be performed by any automotive repair establishment or individual using any automotive part which has been certified as provided in subsection (a)(2) of this section.

42 U.S.C. § 7541(c)(3).

3. The Act provides:

(1) In the case of motor vehicle part or motor vehicle engine the manufacturer or rebuilder of such part may certify that use of such part will not result in a failure of the vehicle or engine to comply with emission standards promulgated under section 7521 of this title. Such certification shall be made only under such regulations as may be promulgated by the Administrator to carry out the purposes of subsection (b) of this section. The Administrator shall promulgate such regulations no later than two years following August 7, 1977.

42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(2).

4. Plaintiff's arguments are strongest about § 304 of the Clean Air Act. The other alleged grounds for jurisdiction found by the district court suffer from the same disabilities which afflict the claims of § 304. Nothing in the Mandamus Act, Declaratory Judgment Act or the federal issue jurisdiction gives the district court the right to override the explicit grant of jurisdiction in § 307(b)(1). Thus, under none of these jurisdictional grounds may the district court review the procedures used to issue the performance warranty regulation.