N A T I ON A L P A R KS C ON S E R VA T I ON

A S S O C I A T I O N , Pl ai nt i ff , v . K E N SA L A Z A R , Secret ary of t he U nit ed S ta te s D e p a r tm e n t o f

th e In te r io r , et a l., D e fe n d a n ts . UNI TED S TATES DI S TRI CT COURT FO R T H E D IST R IC T O F C O L U M B IA

C i v i lA c t i o n 0 9 - 0 0 1 1 5 ( HHK)

M EM ORANDUM OPI NI ON AND ORDER Th e N at i on al Parks C on servati on A ssociat i on ( “N PC A ”) bri ngs this sui tag ai nst Ken Salazar , Secr et aryof

the D epartm ent of

the I nter i or, G l end a O w ens, A ct i ng D i r ect or of the O f f i ce of Su r f a c e M i ni ng Re c l a mat i on a nd Enf or c e men t( “ OSM ” ) , a nd L i s a Ja c ks on, Admi ni s tr a t orof the E nv i r on m ental Prot ect i on A g ency( “EP A ”) , ( coll ect i vely , the “Fed er al def end ants”) c ha l l e ng i ng the pr omul g a t i on of OSM ’ s Fi na l Rul e f

or“ Exc e s s Sp oi l , Coa l M i ne W a s t e , a nd Buf f e r s f orP e r e nn i a l a ndInt e rmi tt e ntS tr e a ms , ” 7 3 F e d. Re g . 7 5, 81 4 ( De c . 1 2, 2 00 8) ( “ S BZ Rul e ” ) , a ndthe E P A’ s wr i tt e n de t e rmi na t i on c on c urr i ngi n the p r om ul g a t i on o f the Ru l e . NP CA a l l e g e s tha tthe Fe de r a l de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e d the Admi ni s tr a t i ve Pr oc e dur e s Ac t , 5 U. S. C. § 551 et s e q. ( “ APA”) , the Su r f

a c e M i ni ng Contr ol a nd Rec l a mat i on Act , 30 U. S. C. § 1276 , s ubs e c t i on 7( a ) ( 2) of

the En da ng e r e d S pe c i e s Ac t , 16 U. S. C. § 1536 ( a ) ( 2) ( “ ESA” ) , a nd s e c t i ons 10 1 a nd 303 of the Cl e a n W a t e rAc t , 33 U. S. C. §§ 12 51, 13 13. T he Na t i ona l M i ni ng As s oc i a t i on (“N M A ”) ha s b een p erm itted interv en e as a d ef en d an t.

### 2

Be f or e the Co urta r e the mo t i on s o f the F e de r a l d e f

e nd a nt s t o r e ma nda ndv a c a t e the S BZ Rul e [ #10] a nd t o d i s mi s s thi s a c t i on f orl a c k o f

j ur i s di c t i on [ #12] on the g r ound s tha tthe r e no l ong e re xi s t s ac a s e a nd c ontr ove r s y . Upon c ons i de r a t i on of the mot i ons , the op pos i t i ons the r e t o, a nd the r e c or d i n thi s c a s e , the Courtc onc l ude s tha tthe mot i ons s houl d b e de ni e d. I . BA CKG ROUND O n D ece m b er 12 , 2 0 0 8 , af ter p u b li sh ing n o ti ce an d so li citi n g p u b li c co m m en t on it s pr op os e d a me nd me ntt o r e g ul a t i on s r e g a r di ngs tr e a m b uf f e rz on e s , OS M p ub l i s he d the S BZ Rul e , whi c h r e g ul a t e s e xc e s s mi ni ng s poi l , di s pos a l of mi ne wa s t e , s tr e a m buf f e rz one s , a nd str eam - chan nel di versi on s. NP C A f i l ed thi s suiti n J anu ary20 09 al l eg i ng that the F ederal de f e ndant s vi ol a t e d s e ve r a l s t a tut e s i n p r omul g a t i ng a nd c onc urr i ng i n the pr omul g a t i on of the S B Z R u le. In A p ri l 20 0 9 , Se cretarySa lazar “d eterm ine d that the O S M err ed in f aili n g to in it iate co n su lt ation w ith the U . S . Fish an d W il d li f e S erv ice u n d er th e E S A to ev alu ate p o ssib le ef f ects o f th e S B Z R u le o n th re a te n e d an d en d a n gere d sp e c ie s .” D e f s .’ M o t. f

o r R e m a n d & V a c a tu r at 2 . A cco rdin gl y , the F ed eral de f en d an ts m o v e to rem an d an d v aca te th e S B Z R u le an d to d ism iss this act i on . NM A op po ses the F ederal def end ants’ m oti on s and the N PC A sup po rt s the m oti on s. II. AN A L Y SIS T h e F ed eral de f

en d an ts arg u e tha t th is C o u rtsh o u ld em p loyit s eq u it ab le au tho ri tyto r em and , as w el l as vacate, the S B Z R ule because Secre t arySala zarhas con f essed ser i ou s l eg al de f i c i e nc i e s i n the rul e mak i ng a nd va c a turwi l l no tr e s ul ti n d i s rupt i ve c ons e que nc e s . T he Fe de r a l de f

e nda nt s f urthe ra r g ue tha tthe r e no l ong e re xi s t s ac a s e orc ontr ove r s ybe twee n the p arti es, an d that jud icial ef f icien cyco u n sels in f

av o r o f the F ed eral de f

en d an ts’ p o siti o n that this

### 3

cas e sh o u ld b e d ism issed , b eca u se d ism issal w o u ld aff o rd p laintif

f the s am e reli ef

that itw o u ld re c e iv e if

it w o n o n th e m e rits . In o ppos i t i on, the NM A a r g ue s tha tthe Fe de r a l de f e nda nt s s houl d n otbe pe rmi tt e d t o bypass the A PA ’ s procedu r es f or r epeali ng an ag encyrule. The N M A dispu t es the F ederal de f e ndant s ’ a s s e rt i on tha tthe r e wa s a nyl e g a l de f i c i e nc yi n the rul e ma ki ng l e a di ng up t o the p rom u lg ation o f

the S B Z R u le an d the F ed eral de f en d an ts’ co n ten ti o n that v aca ti n g the ru le w o u ld n o t cau se d isrup ti o n . Th e N M A ’s po siti o n h as m erit . Th e cas es ci t ed b ythe F ederal def end ants pr ov i de scant supp ortf or theirpo si t i on that rem an d an d v aca tur is ap p rop ri ate h ere b eca u se th e circu m stan ces ad d resse d in th o se ca ses are mat e r i a l l ydi f

f e r e ntf r om thos e e xt a nthe r e . F ore xa mpl e i n Al l i e d- Signal , I nc . v . U. S. Nuc l e ar Regulator

y Commis s i on , 98 8 F . 2d 146, 15 0- 51 ( D. C. Ci r . 19 93) , a nd U nited Mi ne W

orkers v. D o le , 87 0 F . 2d 662, 67 3- 74 ( D. C. Ci r . 19 89) , ac ourtr e man de d a nd va c a t e d a n a g e nc ya c t i on onl ya f t e rr e a c hi ng the me r i t s of the c ha l l e ng e . He r e , the Fe de r a l de f e nda nt s s e e k ar e man d a nd v aca tur o f

the S B Z R u le w ith o u t a determ ina ti o n o n the m erit s th at th e S B Z R u le i s legal ly d ef icien t. O the r cas es cited b ythe F ed eral de f en d an ts r elate to an agen cy ’s m o ti o n f o r v o lun tary re m a n d u p o n a f

in d in g o f sign if ic a n t n e w ev id e n c e . See Ethyl C orp . v. Bro w ner , 98 9 F . 2d 522, 52 4 (D . C . C i r . 19 93 ) ( ho l ding that wh er e there w as si g nif i cant new evidence, a r em and w as ap p rop ri ate). H ere, the Fe d eral de f en d an ts p o int to n o n ew ev ide n ce an d ask the C o u rtn o t on ly t o reman d the case, bu tt o v acat e the S B Z R ule. B u ild in gIn du s tr ie s L eg a l D e fe n s e Fo u n da tio n v. N

o r to n , 23 1 F . S up p. 2 d 10 0 ( D. D. C. 2002 ) a nd Nat i onalAs s oc i at i on of Home Bu i lde rs v . Ev ans , No. 00 - c v- 0279 9, 20 02 W L 12 0574 3 ( D. D. C. 20 02) a l s o a ddr e s s e d ma t e r i a l l ydi f f e r e ntc i r c ums t a nc e s . In Nat i onalAs s oc i at i on of

### 4

H om e Bu i lders , the co u rtap p rov ed a co n sen t dec ree tha t vac ated an d r em an d ed an agen cyru le o v e r th e o bje c ti o n s o f am i cicuriae w h ere the Se cretaryo f C o m m erce co n f

ess ed leg al err o r in l i g htof a n a dve r s e Te nth Ci r c ui tde c i s i on. 2 002 W L 12 0574 3, a t*3 . T he r e , a l l pa rt i e s t o the c a s e agre e d th a t th e ru le sh o u ld b e rem a n d e d an d v a c a te d . Id . He r e , NM A, af ul l pa rtyt o the c a s e as an in te rv e n o r, s e e Dis tr i c tof Columbi a v . M

e r i tSys . Pr ote c t i on Bd. , 76 2 F . 2d 129, 13 2 ( D. C. Ci r . 19 85) , op pos e s the Fe de r a l de f e nda nt s ’ mot i on f

orva c a tur . F urthe r , whi l e no t r e a c hi ng the me r i t s i t s e l f , the c ourti n N

ati on al Associati on of H om e Bu i lders r ev iew ed the T en th Ci r c ui tde c i s i on on the me r i t s , whi c h h a d c a us e d the Se c r e t a ryof Commer c e t o c onf

e s s e rr or , a nd f o u n d th e o th e r co u rt’s o p in io n to b e “w e ll-re a s o n e d ” an d f o u n d e d in “p e rs u a s iv e ratio n a le .” 2002 W L 12 0574 3, a t*3 . In Bui ldi ng I ndus tr y LegalDe

f e ns e Fo unda t i on , th e c a s e w h i c h N MA c onc e de s t o b e mos tf

a c tua l l ya na l og ous t o thi s c a s e , the c ourtg r a nt e d amot i on f orr e man d a nd va c a tur ove rthe ob

j e c t i ons of

i nt e rve nore nvi r onme nt a l g r oups whe r e the Se c r e t a ryof the In te rio r d e c id e d th a t a ru le req u ire d rec o n s id e ra tio n in ligh t o f th e sa m e T e n th C irc u it d e c is io n . 23 1 F . Su pp . 2d at10 8. Th er e, ho w ever, al l part i es ag r eed thatthe rul e sho uld b e r em and ed be c a us e l e g a l e rr ore xi s t e d i n the rul e mak i ng pr oc e s s a nd the on l ydi s put e c onc e rne d h ow the a gen c ysh o u ld b e in s tru c te d u p o n rem a n d an d w h e th e r v a c a tu r w a s als o ap p ro p ria te . Id . a t 1 0 3 . T h e C o u rtf

ind s n o p reced en t t o su p p o rtthe p rop o siti o n that itsh o u ld rem an d an d v aca te the S B Z R ule und erthe cir cum st ances present ed h er e. M oreov er , the N M A has the b ett er ar g um ent that g r anti ng the F ederal def end ants’ m oti on w ou l d w r on g f ull ypermitthe F ederal de f e ndant s t o b ypa s s e s t abl i s he d s t a tut orypr oc e dur e s f orr e pe a l i ng a n a g e nc yrul e . T he APA r equ i r es g ov ernm ent ag encies t o f oll ow cert ai n p r oced ures, i nclud i ng prov i ding f or pu bli c no t i ce a nd c ommen t , be f

or e e na c t i ng ora men di ng arul e . 5 U. S. C. § 553( b) , ( c ) . An a g e nc ymus tf ol l ow

### 5

the sam e procedu r e i n o r der t o repeal a rule. 5 U . S.C. § 5 51 ( 5) ( “‘ [ R ] ule mak i ng’ m eans ag ency p roc ess f o r f o rm u lati n g, am en d ing, o r r e pe al i nga ru le. ”(em p h asis ad d ed )) ; see M o torVe h icle M f rs . As s ’ n v . State Fa r m Mut . Au to. I ns . Co. , 4 6 3 U . S . 2 9 , 4 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) (“[A ] n agen cych an gi n g it s co u rse b yr ep ealin g a rule is o b li gated to su p p lya r eas o n ed an aly sis f o r the ch an ge. ”); C on sum er Ene r gy Counc i lof

Am. v . FE

RC , 6 7 3 F .2 d 4 2 5 , 4 4 6 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 8 2 ), a ff’d , 46 3 U. S. 12 16 ( 1983 ) ( “[ T] he A PA exp r essl ycon t em plat es that noti ce and an op po rtun i tyt o co m m ent wil l be prov i ded pri or t o ag encydecis i on s t o repeal a rule. ”) . W hil e no t i ce and co m m ent pr oced ure i s no tr equ i r ed w h e re a c o u rt v a c a te s a ru le after m a k in g a f in d in g o n th e m e rits , s e e , e . g. , Ce men tKi ln R e c y c l i ng Coalv . EP

A , 25 5 F . 3d 85 5, 87 2 (D . C . C i r . 20 01 ) , g r anti ng vacatur here w ou l d all ow the F ederal de f e ndant s t o d o wha tthe yc a nnotdo un de rthe APA, r e pe a l arul e wi thoutpu bl i c no t i c e a nd com m ent, w i tho ut j ud i ci al con si derat i on of the m er i t s. I I I . C ON C L U S I ON Forthe r e a s on s e tf

orth above a nd be c a us e thi s c a s e qu i t e c l e a r l ypr e s e nt s ac ont i nui ng

“ c a s e a n d c o n tr o v e r s y,” itis th i s 1 2 d a y o f A u gu s t2 0 0 9 , h e r e b y th ORDERED that d ef

en d an ts’ m o ti o n s f

o r v o lun taryr em an d an d v aca tur [#1 0 ] is DENI ED ; and i ti s f

urther ORDERED that def

end ants’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss [ #1 2] i s DENI ED . H en ryH . K en n ed y , J r. U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t J u d ge