Opinion ID: 1213767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Permitting Claim

Text: SAPS claims that Metacon is operating a hazardous waste disposal facility without a permit in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). Hazardous waste within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a) must meet the narrower regulatory definition of solid waste. Thus, to prevail, SAPS must allege and prove that the lead deposited on the Metacon site is a discarded material, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27), which 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(a)(2)(i)(A) defines in relevant part as any material which is abandoned by being [d]isposed of or by being [a]ccumulated, stored, or treated (but not recycled) before or in lieu of being abandoned by being disposed of. 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(b). SAPS argues that the maintenance of a shooting range where lead shot accumulates involves discarded material within the meaning of the RCRA permitting regulations. The district court dismissed this claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court noted that the EPA took the position in amicus briefs in both Connecticut Coastal and Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc. v. N.Y. Athletic Club, No. 94 Civ. 0436(RPP), 1996 WL 131863 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.22, 1996), that the ordinary use of lead shot on a shooting range does not fall within the regulatory definition of solid waste because [s]pent rounds of ammunition and target fragments are not ... `discarded material' within the meaning of the regulation, because they have not been `abandoned,' ... [but] come to rest on land... as a result of their proper and expected use. Simsbury-Avon Pres. Soc'y, LLC v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., No. 3:04 Civ. 803(JBA), 2005 WL 1413183, at  (D.Conn. June 14, 2005). The court observed further that the EPA's guidance manual, Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, published in 2001, states that [l]ead shot is not considered a hazardous waste subject to RCRA at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is used for its intended purpose. As such, shooting lead shot (or bullets) is not regulated nor is a RCRA permit required to operate a shooting range. Id. (quoting EPA Doc. No. EPA-902-B-01-001). The court concluded that the EPA's interpretation of its regulations was reasonable and entitled to deference. Id. at . In response to a request from this Court, the United States has submitted an amicus brief addressing whether lead shot discharged at a shooting range falls within the regulatory definition of solid waste set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 261.2. The United States maintains that the EPA ... has consistently taken the position that the discharge of lead shot as part of the normal use of that product (i.e., being fired from a gun at a firing range) does not render the materials `discarded' within the meaning of the RCRA subtitle C permitting regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), and further that the EPA has repeatedly stated that its regulatory jurisdiction under RCRA does not apply to products that are applied to the land in the ordinary manner of use, because such products are being used, not `abandoned.' United States Supp. Amicus Br. 5-6. We conclude that this interpretation of 40 C.F.R. § 261.2 by the EPA is entitled to deference. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997). The regulation is ambiguous as to whether lead shot discharged into a shooting range's berm, or the range itself, constitutes discarded material. A person shooting a gun into a berm clearly knows that his spent ammunition will remain there unless removed. But has he therefore discarded it? Or has he instead merely used the ammunition in its intended manner, with the result that it is left on the land? The text of 40 C.F.R. § 261.2 provides no definitive answer. In such circumstances we will generally defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, including one presented in an amicus brief, so long as the interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with law. See Roth ex rel. Beacon Power Corp. v. Perseus, LLC, 522 F.3d 242, 247-48 (2d Cir.2008); see also Linares Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 229 (2nd Cir.2008) ( Auer deference ... is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., 462 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while agency interpretations that lack the force of law do not warrant deference when they interpret ambiguous statutes, they do normally warrant deference when they interpret ambiguous regulations ); M. Fortunoff of Westbury Corp. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 432 F.3d 127, 139 (2d Cir.2005) (To the extent that the amicus brief is interpreting the agency's own regulations, as it is here, it is entitled to deference under Auer, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79, as long as the regulation is ambiguous.). Here, the agency reasonably determined that lead shot put to its ordinary, intended use, i.e., discharged at a shooting range, is neither material which is ... abandoned by being ... [d]isposed of, nor [a]ccumulated... before or in lieu of being abandoned by being disposed of. 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(a)(2)(i), (b). The EPA's distinction between abandonment of lead shot, which falls within the regulatory definition of solid waste, and the normal, intended use of lead shot at a shooting range, which does not, is consistent with related RCRA regulations. For example, 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(c)(ii) provides that certain commercial chemical products ... are not solid wastes if they are applied to the land and that is their ordinary manner of use. Similarly, [a] military munition is not a solid waste when ... [u]sed for its intended purpose, while an unused military munition is a solid waste when ... [t]he munition is abandoned by being disposed of. 40 C.F.R. § 266.202(a), (b); see also Military Toxics Project, 146 F.3d at 952 (The Military Munitions Rule provides that a military munition that lands on a firing range is not a solid waste and hence cannot be a hazardous waste for purposes of Subtitle C.). More generally, the EPA's position that materials put to their ordinary, intended use are not abandoned under the regulatory definition of solid waste, and hence are not subject to the permitting requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), is consistent with the RCRA. As this Court has recognized, the words of the statute contemplate that the EPA would refine and narrow the definition of solid waste, Conn. Coastal, 989 F.2d at 1315, for the purpose of the more stringent regulatory treatment afforded to hazardous wastes in Subchapter III, where the permitting provisions are located. The EPA's interpretation of its regulations  excluding from the more stringent permitting requirements of § 6925(a) those materials deposited on the land as part of their intended use  does just that. We also note the consistency of the EPA's interpretation of 40 C.F.R. § 261.2 over time. See Auer, 519 U.S. at 462, 117 S.Ct. 905 (observing that an agency's interpretation of a regulation contained in a legal brief was entitled to deference where it was in no sense a ` post hoc rationalization' advanced by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack and there was no reason to suspect the interpretation did not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question). The EPA took the position that lead munitions discharged at a shooting range do not fall within the regulatory definition of solid waste in an amicus brief to this Court in Connecticut Coastal, 989 F.2d at 1315, decided in 1993, and again in an amicus brief to a district court in Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc., 1996 WL 131863 at -9, decided in 1996. Furthermore, in the Best Management Practices manual the EPA makes clear that while spent lead shot left in the environment is subject to the broader definition of solid waste employed elsewhere in the RCRA, [l]ead shot is not considered a hazardous waste subject to RCRA at the time it is discharged from a firearm ... nor is a RCRA permit required to operate a shooting range. J.A. at 129. SAPS argues that [e]ven if it is determined that the act of shooting may not require a RCRA permit ... the maintenance of a site where shot accumulates should. Appellants' Br. 14. However, the EPA's interpretation is that the nature of a material's use, not the length of time it lies unrecovered, determines whether the regulatory definition of solid waste applies. See United States Supp. Amicus Br. 9 (EPA has interpreted its regulations to mean that, when lead shot falls on a gun range as part of the normal use of the range, RCRA Section 6925(a) permit requirements do not arise by the mere passage of time.). We defer to the EPA's interpretation of 40 C.F.R. § 261.2. Because the lead on Metacon's site was not abandoned but is the result of the regular, intended use of lead shot at a shooting range, Metacon was not required to obtain a permit under 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). Accordingly, SAPS's permitting claim, which is premised on such a requirement, was properly dismissed.