Opinion ID: 2977347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Environmental Petitioners contend that this dispute should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that original review of the Final Rule by the courts of appeals is not covered by the grant of original jurisdiction set forth in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). Environmental Petitioners are correct that “Congress did not intend court of appeals jurisdiction over all EPA actions taken pursuant to the Act.” Lake Cumberland Trust, Inc. v. EPA, 954 F.2d 1218, 1222 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Boise Cascade Corp. v. EPA, 942 F.2d 1427, 1431 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, we conclude that, at a minimum, §1369(b)(1)(F) encompasses the action before us. Under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F), a party may challenge EPA actions “issuing or denying any permit under [33 U.S.C.] section 1342 . . .” in the appropriate circuit court. The Clean Water Act’s permitting program is set forth in § 1342. The jurisdictional grant of § 1369(b)(1)(F) authorizes the courts of appeals “to review the regulations governing the issuance of permits under section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, as well as the issuance or denial of a particular permit.” Am. Mining Cong. v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 4 Industry Intervenors include each of the Industry Petitioners listed above as well as American Farm Bureau Federation and American Forest & Paper Association. 5 American Mosquito Association submitted a brief as amicus curiae in support of the Final Rule. Nos. 06-4630; 07-3180/3181/3182/ The Nat’l Cotton Council Page 8 3183/3184/3185/3186/3187/3191/3236 of Am., et al. v. EPA 966 F.2d 1292, 1296-97 (9th Cir. 1992), the court held that it had jurisdiction to review an EPA rule exempting uncontaminated storm-water discharge from the permitting regulations. The Natural Resources court concluded that it had “the power to review rules that regulate the underlying permit procedures.” Id. at 1297 (citing NRDC v. EPA, 656 F.2d 768, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1981) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 136 (1976)). The Final Rule before us today likewise regulates the permitting procedures, and we therefore conclude that jurisdiction is proper under § 1369(b)(1)(F).