Ctr. for Regulatory Reasonableness v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
| Decision Date | 28 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-1150,14-1150 |
| Citation | 849 F.3d 453 |
| Parties | CENTER FOR REGULATORY REASONABLENESS, Petitioner v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
John C. Hall argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Gary B. Cohen and Philip D. Rosenman.
Jeffrey S. Longsworth was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Association of Clean Water Agencies in support of petitioner.
Andrew J. Doyle, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard T. Witt, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Michele L. Walter, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.
Before: Kavanaugh and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.
As a general matter, the Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters except in accordance with a permit. The Environmental Protection Agency promulgates rules governing those permits. Some of the permitting rules apply to publicly owned water treatment facilities. In 2011, EPA issued policy letters that explained and arguably changed two EPA policies with respect to publicly owned water treatment facilities. A group representing the interests of municipalities then sued to challenge the new EPA policy letters in the Eighth Circuit. The group prevailed in the Eighth Circuit. See Iowa League of Cities v. EPA , 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013).
Beginning in 2013, EPA made statements indicating that it would not acquiesce in or follow the Eighth Circuit's decision outside of that circuit. We will refer to those EPA statements collectively as "EPA's non-acquiescence statement." In this Court, an industry group—the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness—then sued EPA. The Center raised multiple challenges to the non-acquiescence statement's legality, including claims that the non-acquiescence statement was itself a rule promulgated without proper notice and comment and in excess of the agency's statutory authority.
The key threshold question here is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this kind of challenge at this time. We do not. In general, district courts have jurisdiction to review final agency actions unless a statutory provision provides for direct review in a court of appeals. To be sure, the Clean Water Act authorizes direct court of appeals review of EPA-promulgated effluent or other limits on discharge of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(E). We need not determine whether EPA's non-acquiescence statement constitutes a "promulgation" because EPA's non-acquiescence statement does not announce an effluent or other limit on discharge of pollutants. The non-acquiescence statement merely articulates how EPA will interpret the Eighth Circuit's decision. Therefore, to the extent the Center wants to directly challenge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv.
...[courts] generally will assume the merits as the plaintiff or petitioner pleads them[.]" Ctr. for Regulatory Reasonableness v. Envtl. Prot. Agency , 849 F.3d 453, 454 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1041, 200 L.Ed.2d 246 (2018) ; cf. Parker v.......
-
Hall & Assocs. LLC v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...against the EPA's regulation of a water treatment practice known as "blending" for at least 6 years. See Ctr. for Regulatory Reasonableness v. EPA , 849 F.3d 453, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The details of the EPA's policies with respect to blending are not pertinent to the instant case; it suffi......
-
Hall & Assocs. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...that it would not acquiesce in or follow the Eighth Circuit’s decision outside of that circuit." Center for Regulatory Reasonableness v. EPA , 849 F.3d 453, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2017).As evidence that the EPA likely had records of a decision not to acquiesce in Iowa League of Cities , Hall’s Nove......
-
Hall & Assocs. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency
... ... of water from treatment facilities. See Ctr. for Regul ... Reasonableness v. EPA , 849 F.3d 453, 454 (D.C. Cir ... 2017); see ... authorization to proceed with this proposed regulatory action ... [the “Peak Flows Management Rulemaking”], ... including any agency or ... ...