Opinion ID: 678490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bevill/Listed Wastes Provision

Text: 43 The EPA maintains that the Bevill/listed wastes provision, which applies the Subtitle C mixture rule to mixtures of Bevill and listed wastes, is nothing more than an interpretation of that rule and is therefore exempt from the APA's requirements. We agree that in construing the mixture rule to encompass such wastes, the EPA did not create law; rather, it made a statement[ ] as to what [it] thinks the ... regulation means. Gibson Wine Co., Inc. v. Snyder, 194 F.2d 329, 331 (D.C.Cir.1952); Cabais v. Egger, 690 F.2d 234, 238 (D.C.Cir.1982) (same). Such interpretations are not subject to the APA's notice and hearing requirements. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(3)(A). Because the interpretation preceded the adoption of the Chafee Amendment, it was effectively enacted into law as part of the Subtitle C mixture rule. See Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 194 (D.C.Cir.1993) (Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change.). Therefore, the Bevill petitioners' challenge to this provision of the Bevill mixture rule is moot for the same reason as is their challenge to the Subtitle C mixture and derived-from rules.