Opinion ID: 544587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 25 Petitioners offer three arguments to show that the agency's listing of the six wastes as hazardous in the 1988 Rule is unlawful. First, they challenge the agency's interpretation of the term discarded in RCRA, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6903(27). Relying principally on the decision of this court in American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, 1179 (D.C.Cir.1987) (AMC ), petitioners argue that three of the six wastes are not discarded, and therefore are not solid wastes, and therefore cannot be hazardous wastes within the meaning of RCRA. Second, petitioners argue that because the agency relied on the notice and comment periods it offered the public prior to the 1980 Rule, and again in 1985, but chose not to hold another period of notice and comment prior to issuing the 1988 Rule, the agency violated the APA. Cf. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 (1988). Third, petitioners argue that EPA has inadequately explained the bases of its decision to relist the six wastes as hazardous. Cf. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A) (APA arbitrary and capricious standard). 26 We will address each contention in turn. Before doing so, however, we must dispose of a procedural question about our jurisdiction over three of the six consolidated petitions.