Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury

679 F.2d 951, 220 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18711

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 1982
• Docket: 81-2091
• Status: Published

Opinions

PALMIERI, District Judge:

Appellant, a trade association of copper and brass fabricating companies, challenges the Treasury Department’s decision to decrease the copper content of the penny from 95% copper and 5% zinc to a copper-plated zinc blank containing 2.4% copper and 97.6% zinc. This decision was made pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 317(b) (1976),¹ which was enacted by Congress in 1974 in response to rising copper prices and the withdrawal from circulation of substantial quantities of pennies as a result of the public hoarding which followed. The district court, 524 F.Supp. 945, held that while appellant’s alleged economic injury was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement of an “injury in fact,” appellant was not within the “zone of interests” protected, benefited or regulated by the statute, 31 U.S.C. § 317(b), and consequently lacked standing to challenge the Treasury Department’s decision. We agree. In light of our recent decision in Control Data Corp. v. Baldridge, 655 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 881, 102 S.Ct. 363, 70 L.Ed.2d 190 (1981), in which we discussed the “zone of interests” test, our decision can be brief.

The zone of interests standard, as Control Data explains, requires some indicia — however slight — that the litigant before the court was intended to be protected, benefited or regulated by the statute under which suit is brought. Our review of the relevant statutory provision, section 317(b), and its legislative history reveals no indication that Congress intended to protect, benefit or regulate appellant. Section 317(b), on its face, reveals no such purpose; rather, it clearly purports to grant the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to prescribe the copper and zinc composition “as he may deem appropriate” and as “is necessary in order to assure an adequate supply of coins to meet national needs.”

The legislative history of the statute confirms this conclusion. Prior to the enactment of section 317(b) in 1974, the law did not provide the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to alter the copper content of pennies; it merely prescribed that pennies would be composed of 95% copper and 5% zinc. In the face of rising copper prices and penny hoarding by the public, legislation was introduced which would vest discretion in the Treasury Department to change the copper content and substitute a less costly metal in response to the above trends. The initial proposal, S. 2795, envisioned aluminum as a substitute for copper and was favorably reported out of committee and passed the Senate without debate.² In the House, however, as H.R. 11841, the proposal met with strong opposition from the vending machine industry which feared that the coins would jam its machines and from medical experts in the fields of pediatrics and radiology who testified that x-rays would not detect an aluminum penny if ingested by a child.³ In response to the above groups’ objections, H.R. 16032 was enacted and codified as 31 U.S.C. § 317(b) and (c), to substitute zinc rather than aluminum for copper.⁴

While Congress thus took into consideration the interests of vending machine operators and children who might ingest coins in amending section 317, there is no indication that Congress intended this legislation to benefit, protect or regulate the copper industry.⁵ Rather, the economic interests of the copper industry appear to be directly at odds with the “national needs” compelling the enactment of section 317(b). It is clear from the legislative history of section 317(b) that, in the face of rising copper prices and the resulting hoarding of pennies by the public, Congress intended to grant the Treasury Department broad discretion to decrease the copper content of the penny “to meet national needs.” This clear intent to permit discretionary reduction in copper content, in favor of zinc, can in no respect be viewed as an intent to benefit or protect the copper industry; rather, the statutory interests and appellant’s interests are ineongruent. It follows that appellant does not fall within the zone of interests sought to be protected, benefited, or regulated by section 317(b). Control Data Corp. v. Baldridge, supra, 655 F.2d at 295.

Affirmed.

1 . Section 317(b) reads:

“Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary in order to assure an adequate supply of coins to meet national needs, he may prescribe such composition of the copper and zinc in the alloy of the one-cent piece as he may deem appropriate. Such one-cent pieces shall have such weight as may be prescribed by the Secretary.”

2 . S.Rep.No.93-622, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973); 119 Cong.Rec. 41550 (Dec. 14, 1973).

3 . See To Authorize a Change in the Composition of the One-Cent Coin: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974 hearing).

4 . Section 317(c) gave the Secretary authority to alter the composition of the penny to “such other metallic composition as he shall determine” if the use of copper became impracticable and if certain procedural prerequisites were met. This section expired on December 31, 1977. Appellant argues that the time-limited, broad authorization in 317(c) suggests that 317(b) should be given a narrower reading. We disagree. The apparent legislative scheme evidenced by these two subsections was to permit, in subsection (c), temporary flexibility to the Treasury due to uncertainty over the technical feasibility of producing an economical copper-zinc penny which possessed the necessary manufacturing and circulation qualities. It was believed that the lowest copper content technologically possible to achieve — considering damage to the dies and the weight of the coin — was 70%. Apparently, therefore, subsection (c) permitted temporary flexibility to explore alternatives to the copper-zinc penny, provided for in subsection (b), in light of these technical and practical considerations. Appellant has presented us with no evidence to the contrary.

5 . We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that a one-page letter submitted by Olin Brass Corporation and placed in the hearings record by Mary T. Brooks, Director of the Bureau of the Mint, signals a possible legislative interest in the welfare of the copper industry. Appellant suggests that because of this letter, the Administration retreated from the aluminum coin proposal stating that it was “sensitive to any hardship or expense this may force upon individuals or industries of our country.” Brief for Appellant at 9-10, 46. This argument is without merit. When Ms. Brooks made the above statement, Olin Brass’ letter was not in the record as was no other testimony or evidence in support of the copper industry’s position. The statement apparently refers to the vending machine industry which had voiced strong opposition to the aluminum legislation.