1815 (1972), aff’d by an equally divided court, Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541, 93 S.Ct. 2770, 37 L.Ed.2d 140 (1973) (taking jurisdiction over a claim that the Administrator had abdicated his duty in failing to require that state implementation plans provide against significant deterioration of existing air quality). But see Anaconda v. Ruckelshaus, 482 F.2d 130L(10th Cir. 1973). 24 . See Anaconda v. Ruckelshaus, supra note 23, at 1304. 25 . See, e. g., NRDC v. Train, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 510 F.2d 692, 703 (1974) (dealing with an analogous provision of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972); Highland Park v. Train, 374 F.Supp. 758, 765-67 (N.D.M.1974). NRDC v. Quarles, No. 1629-73 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 1974). 26 . Compare Pinkney v. Ohio EPA, 375 F.Supp. 305 (N.D.Ohio 1974) (<HOLDING>), with Utah Internat’l v. EPA, 478 F.2d 126
holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that delay in the promulgation of indirect source regulations is action sufficient to trigger review under  307