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

Heading: Challenges to EPA Treatment of Mixtures of Bevill and Hazardous Wastes

Text: 29 The EPA addressed the problems arising out of the Bevill Amendment in a final rule issued on September 1, 1989. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,592. It dealt with Bevill/characteristic waste mixtures by revising the definition of hazardous waste in section 261.3 of its regulations. As revised and subsequently reissued, the definition distinguishes between two kinds of Bevill/characteristic waste mixtures. The first deals with a Bevill waste that is mixed with a waste that exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. Id. Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(i). The resulting mixture will be subject to Subtitle C regulation 30 if it exhibits a characteristic that would not have been exhibited by the excluded [e.g., Bevill] waste alone if such mixture had not occurred or if it continues to exhibit any of the characteristics exhibited by the non-excluded wastes prior to mixture. 31 40 C.F.R. Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(i). The second deals with a Bevill waste that is mixed with a listed waste that is listed solely because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste. This mixture will be subject to Subtitle C regulation unless the resultant mixture no longer exhibits any characteristic of hazardous waste ... for which the hazardous waste ... was listed. Id. Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iii). With regard to mixtures of Bevill and listed wastes, the EPA concluded that it would stand by the position it had taken in its April 17, 1989, notice of proposed rulemaking; namely, that they would be governed by the Subtitle C mixture rules. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,623. 32 These provisions, which deal, respectively, with Bevil/characteristic waste and Bevill/listed waste mixtures, together constitute the Bevill mixture rule that we vacated in Solite, 952 F.2d at 493-94, and that the EPA reissued in the interim final rule. The Bevill petitioners object to its reissuance on both procedural and substantive grounds. 33 In Solite, we vacated the Bevill mixture rule on the ground that it assumed the validity of the Subtitle C mixture rule, which we had vacated in Shell Oil. In doing so, we stated that 34 [i]f the EPA desires to and successfully does repromulgate the Subtitle C rule, it will similarly be able to repromulgate the Bevill rule, and attempt to justify the latter by reference to the former. Alternatively, the Agency may wish to justify the Bevill rule on independent grounds. 35 Solite, 952 F.2d at 493-94. In its interim final rule, the agency justified its reinstatement of the Bevill mixture rule as follows: 36 The [Solite ] court's opinion did not explicitly address the status of EPA's rule change regarding the application of the hazardous waste characteristics to mixtures of Bevill-exempt wastes. The court in Shell Oil vacated the mixture rule of 40 CFR Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv), which addresses mixtures of listed wastes and other solid wastes. Thus, to the extent that the Solite court addressed mixtures involving listed and Bevill wastes, today's actions will reinstate the affected rules. However, since the Shell Oil court did not address mixtures of characteristic and Bevill wastes, that part of the decision by the Solite court appears to be in error. 37 57 Fed.Reg. at 7,631 (emphasis added). 38 The Bevill petitioners contest what they describe as the summary repromulgation of the Bevill mixture rule on two procedural grounds: First, they assert that the rule was issued without the prior notice and opportunity for comment and without the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) & (c); and second, they maintain that the EPA did not demonstrate that it had good cause to dispense with prior notice and comment, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(3)(B). We consider this argument as it applies to each provision of the Bevill mixture rule. 39
40 The Bevill petitioners acknowledge that the EPA had provided notice and secured comment before the initial issuance of the Bevill/characteristic waste provision in 1989. They assert, nevertheless, that intervening events required a fresh opportunity for comment. The EPA responds, in its brief, that it was not required to reopen notice and comment proceedings because the comments received in response to its April 17, 1989, notice of proposed rulemaking remain fresh and relevant enough to satisfy the requirements of the APA. The agency maintains, further, that because it had fully explained its reasons for promulgating this provision at the time of its original issuance, there was no need for it to reiterate them in the interim final rule. 41 We agree with petitioners that the EPA's repromulgation of the Bevill/characteristic waste provision was procedurally flawed. In Action on Smoking and Health v. CAB, 699 F.2d 1209 (D.C.Cir.1983), we vacated a Civil Aeronautics Board regulation that rescinded three earlier rules because the agency had failed to provide an adequate statement of its action's basis and purpose, as required by the APA. Id. at 1217-19. When the CAB repromulgated the regulation without satisfying APA rulemaking requirements, we again vacated the rule. Action on Smoking and Health v. CAB, 713 F.2d 795 (D.C.Cir.1983) (ASH ). In doing so, we reminded the agency that [t]o 'vacate,' ... means to 'annul; to cancel or rescind; to declare, to make, or to render, void; to defeat; ... to set aside,'  id. at 797, and that if it wished to rescind the three earlier rules, it would have to do so through a new rulemaking. Id. at 798. In Solite, we vacated the original Bevill mixture rule. Accordingly, to repromulgate the rule, the EPA must comply with the applicable provisions of the APA. 42 This does not necessarily require the EPA to start from scratch and initiate new notice and comment proceedings. Id. at 800. The APA's good cause exception may be invoked on a finding that notice and public procedure thereon are ... unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(3)(B) (1988). If the original record is still fresh, a new round of notice and comment might be unnecessary. Such a finding, however, must be made by the agency and supported in the record; it is not self-evident. Although the Administrative Procedure Act does not establish a 'useful life' for a notice and comment record, clearly the life of such a record is not infinite. ASH, 713 F.2d at 800. New information relevant to the agency's decisionmaking might well have come to light after the original notice and comment proceedings and before the repromulgation of the rule. Because the EPA neither initiated a new rulemaking nor invoked the APA's good cause exception in the record, we again vacate the Bevill/characteristic waste provision of the Bevill mixture rule and do not reach petitioners' substantive objections to the provision.
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.