Source: https://openjurist.org/444/us/1035/united-states-steel-corporation-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency
Timestamp: 2018-01-19 15:29:34
Document Index: 334341028

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 7607', '§ 7607', '§ 7607', '§ 7607', '§ 7607', '§ 7607']

444 US 1035 United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency | OpenJurist
444 U.S. 1035 - United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
444 US 1035 United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
444 U.S. 1035
100 S.Ct. 710
62 L.Ed.2d 672
See 445 U.S. 939, 100 S.Ct. 1332.
Both petitioners have facilities located in Lake County, Ind., which was included in the list of nonattainment areas submitted by the State of Indiana to EPA on December 5, 1977. EPA promulgated its list, which included Lake County, on March 3, 1978. At the same time, EPA announced that the designations were immediately applicable and effective. In explaining its failure to promulgate the list as a proposed rule and to comply with the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, EPA asserted that it had "good cause" to dispense with the requirements as provided in 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). In particular it cited the need to give the States immediate guidance on the location of nonattainment areas so that those States could meet the deadline of January 1, 1979, for their implementation plans. EPA did solicit after-the-fact comments, due by May 2, 1978, and subsequently amended its list in certain respects not relevant here.
Petitioners brought the present action for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, claiming, inter alia, that EPA's designation of Lake County as a nonattainment area was "not in accordance with law" under the APA because of EPA's failure to follow the notice-andcomment procedure. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim on two grounds. First, it held that the tight statutory schedule under which EPA was operating provided that agency with "good cause" to dispense with the usual procedures. Second, it held that, under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9), even if EPA had failed to abide by the procedural requirements of the APA its action would not be reversed unless petitioners demonstrated that they had objected to the procedure during the grace period provided by EPA for after-the-fact comments and that the error was "so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if such errors had not been made." Pet., at A13, quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(8) as incorporated by § 7607(d)(9)(D). According to the Court of Appeals, petitioners had failed to carry their burden as to either of these factors.
While conceding that a conflict exists, EPA argues that "the unique statutory circumstances that created the practical need to promulgate the original designations without prior notice and comment no longer exist, and the issue presented will not recur." Response, at 7. In the area of environmental regulation, however, tight statutory schedules are both quite common and frequently unmet. If EPA's actions in the present case pass without review by this Court, persons subject to EPA's jurisdiction in different parts of the country will be entitled to different procedural protections when either they or EPA find themselves up against a deadline. Moreover, these recurring deadlines will almost invariably have passed by the time this Court receives a petition, allowing EPA to argue in each case that, because the deadline has passed, the issue is no longer ripe for review. While no party claims this case is moot, the fact that the issue is "capable of repetition, yet evad[es] review[,]" Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911), makes this a classic case for a grant of certiorari.
As for the alternative holding of the court below, it appears that the unusually strong showing demanded by § 7607(d)(9)(D), but not by the APA, is required only in certain types of actions listed in § 7607(d)(1). See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9). Although the Court of Appeals suggested that promulgation of the list "arguably" could be characterized as one of those enumerated actions, it went well beyond the statutory language to hold that "Congress meant this limitation on review of procedural errors to extend to all rulemaking by the EPA whether or not it is in the explicit categories covered by the provisions of section 7607(d)." Pet., at A14. As petitioners point out, this ruling has the effect of establishing two Administrative Procedure Acts, one for the EPA and one for all other agencies.