Opinion ID: 365968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: petitions by edf and bass.

Text: 109
110 EDF petitioned for review of EPA's failure to perform its duty to cover an alleged loophole in the PCBs prohibition: EPA's regulations apply only to current manufacturers and users of PCBs. EDF contends that past manufacturers and users who have ceased making or using PCBs continue the use of sewer pipes and other equipment contaminated with PCBs, and that the resulting discharges will continue to introduce PCBs into the nation's waters. Because EPA's findings show that continuing PCBs pollution is dangerous, EDF contends that EPA should promulgate additional regulations concerning past manufacturers and users. EDF does not specify whether EPA's alleged duty to close this loophole is mandatory or discretionary, but presumably urges that EPA's failure to act may be countermanded either as a failure to perform a mandatory duty or as an abuse of discretion. 111 We do not reach EDF's arguments on the merits, for we conclude that these arguments may only be presented to a district court. 106 EPA's proposals in its notice of proposed rulemaking covered existing manufacturers and users of PCBs, not former manufacturers and users. 41 Fed.Reg. 30468. Therefore, this proceeding did not focus on them, nor was it intended to deal with the issues that concern EDF. In essence, EDF contends that EPA should have engaged in an additional rulemaking proceeding. Jurisdiction over EDF's claim lies only in the district court. See Currie, Judicial Review under Federal Pollution Laws, 62 Iowa L.Rev. 1221, 1250 (1977) (When there has been no proceeding, there is no administrative record, and, consequently, greater likelihood of need for a trial; therefore, the district court is the appropriate forum.). 112 Jurisdiction lies in a district court whether EPA's alleged duty is mandatory or discretionary. If the duty is mandatory, section 505 of the 1972 Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (1976), expressly confers jurisdiction on the district court. See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 176 U.S.App.D.C. at 386 n. 21, 541 F.2d at 14 n. 21 (Clean Air Act). See generally NRDC v. Train, 545 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1976) (Clean Air Act). If the duty is discretionary, jurisdiction over the claim that EPA abused its discretion lies in district court. NRDC v. Train, 171 U.S.App.D.C. at 155, 519 F.2d at 291. 107 Accordingly, without deciding the legal nature of EPA's alleged duty, we conclude that EDF's petition must be dismissed without prejudice to litigation in the appropriate forum. 113
114 The Bass Anglers Sportsman Society of America (BASS) petitioned for review of EPA's regulations on several grounds: that EPA's choice of an  acceptable analytical method for measuring PCBs discharges was inadequate, and that EPA's failure to promulgate other toxic or pretreatment regulations was arbitrary and capricious. Because BASS did not participate in EPA's PCBs proceedings, its petition must be dismissed. See Nader v. NRC, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 255, 264-65, 513 F.2d 1045, 1054-55 (1975).