this action must be dismissed. II. After a review of all arguments presented and consideration of all relevant case law, the Court agrees with the EPA that RCRA precludes judicial review of pre-enforcement agency orders issued under § 3013 of that Act. For this conclusion, the Court relies heavily on the analysis set forth in United States v. Mobil Oil Corp., No. 96-CV-1432 (JG), 1997 WL 1048911 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.ll, 1997) (dismissing counterclaims asserting a pre-enforcement challenge to a § 3013 order on grounds, inter alia, that RCRA precludes such review). The Court also relies, by analogy, on the authority of Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, 20 F.3d 1418, 1426 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 927, 115 S.Ct. 316, 130 L.Ed.2d 278 (<HOLDING>) and J.V. Peters & Co., Inc. v. Administrator,
holding that denial of permit under section 404 of the clean water act was a taking holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act holding that because review of plaintiffs claim is available under the clean water act it is not subject to review under the apa empha sis in original citations omitted holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act