their products in the government ... market." Id., at 289.
Plaintiff avers that its members include every company capable of competing to supply the Mint with blanks for the current 95% copper penny and that the change in the coin will cost plaintiff's members $ 15,000,000 a year in lost profits. Affidavit of Robert J. Wardell, at PP 34, 35, 37, and 45. Plaintiff further avers that these members "are not able to compete effectively for the supply of plated zinc blanks to the Mint for the manufacture of the new coin," because their plants are not equipped to perform the necessary work, and that for them to enter the zinc fabrication business would require substantial time and expense. Id. at PP 38, 41, 42, and 43 (emphasis in original). Defendants controvert these allegations, see Affidavit of Alan J. Goldman, dated May 26, 1981, at P 12, but "(f)or purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, (we) must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party."
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975); Tax Analysts & Advocates v. Blumenthal, 184 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 566 F.2d 130, 135-36 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086, 98 S. Ct. 1280, 55 L. Ed. 2d 791 (1978). Thus plaintiff has demonstrated the requisite "personal stake" in this litigation to meet one part of its constitutional burden.
Our determination that plaintiff's allegations of injury in fact are sufficient does not end the inquiry, however. We must examine into the presence of any prudential limitation on the exercise of jurisdiction, which has been described in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., supra, as a "zone of interests" test. A party will be denied standing if his alleged injury is to an interest that is not arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question, even though injury in fact has been established. Control Data, supra, at 293; Committee for Auto Responsibility v. Solomon, 195 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 603 F.2d 992, 999 n. 22 (D.C.Cir.1979). "(T)he sources pertinent to this examination are the language of the relevant statutory provisions and their legislative history." Control Data, supra, at 294. Although the "zone of interests" test is to be broadly applied and even " "slight' beneficial indicia" will suffice,
our review of 31 U.S.C. § 317(b) and its legislative history reveals no evidence of an intent to protect or benefit plaintiff's members.
On its face, § 317(b) evidences no concern for the copper industry; to the contrary, the statutory language appears to vest the Secretary with broad discretion to alter the copper-zinc allocation "as he may deem appropriate" when "necessary" "in (his) judgment." Plaintiff vigorously argues, however, that the legislative history of § 317(b) indicates that Congress intended to protect copper fabricators. We are not persuaded. Section 317(b) was enacted in response to rising copper prices in late 1973 and early 1974. The Treasury Department first proposed a statute that would have authorized the Secretary to change the composition of the penny to 96% aluminum when the use of copper became "no longer practicable." This proposal, as S. 2795, was favorably reported out of committee
and passed the Senate without debate.
In the House, however, the aluminum penny proposal, as H.R. 11841, met with strong opposition from the vending machine industry and from medical experts in the fields of pediatrics and radiology who testified that x-rays would not detect an aluminum penny if swallowed by a child.
Accordingly, the House Banking and Currency Committee reported a substitute bill, H.R. 16032, which was enacted and codified as 31 U.S.C. §§ 317(b) and (c).
The committee hearings, committee report and floor debate indicate that in enacting § 317(b) Congress was solely concerned with giving the Secretary discretionary authority to ensure an adequate supply of pennies of a composition and weight that would not interfere with the functioning of vending machines and would be detectable if swallowed by children.
No concern was voiced for the copper industry.
Therefore, we cannot find that plaintiff's interests lie within the zone of interests intended to be protected by 31 U.S.C. § 317(b).
For the above reasons, we conclude that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action and, there being "no case or controversy," we lack jurisdiction. Defendants' motion to dismiss therefore is granted. In light of this disposition, we need not consider plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and to compel discovery.
An order consistent with the foregoing has been entered this day.