Opinion ID: 2966492
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Needs Requirement

Text: The needs regulation requires that a permit application for new or expanded hazardous waste facilities demonstrate need by reference to the level of waste generated in South Carolina only. South Carolina contends that the needs requirement is neutral, functioning similarly to an evenhanded cap and therefore valid. In our earlier opinion, we found that [o]n its face [the needs requirement] appears not to regulate evenhandedly. It permits South Carolina to refuse to allow new construction if all of its waste can be disposed of by exportation. The `practical effect' . . . of the regulation may be to favor in-state interests over out-of-state interests. HWTC, 945 F.2d at 791 n.14 (citation omitted). Indeed, currently, the practical effect may be to establish a ban on building new capacity. We find that the needs requirement is not similar to an evenhanded cap with the same effect on both in-state and out-of-state interests. The effect on out-of-state interests is to prohibit facilities from expanding to meet out-of-state needs, but to allow expansion to meet in-state needs. Thus, just as with the overall limit in question, the needs requirement contains an exception for in-state needs allowing expansion or a raise in the limit where in-state needs dictate such a _________________________________________________________________ ability is whether the constitutional portion of the statute remains `complete in itself, wholly independent of that which is rejected, and is of such a character as that it may fairly be presumed that the Legislature would have passed it independent of that which is in conflict with the Constitution.' Thayer v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 413 S.E.2d 810, 814-15 (S.C. 1992) (citing Shumpert v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways & Public Transp., 409 S.E.2d 771 (1991)) (footnote omitted). We cannot fairly presume that the South Carolina legislature would have passed the overall limit without the provision allowing the limit's increase if South Carolina wastes exceeded the cap. Nor can we assume that the limit would have been passed without the remaining provisions of the statute, which include floors for in-state-wastes and ceilings for out-of-state wastes. By protecting capacity for in-state interests, the legislature may have quelched in-state political interests that might otherwise have lobbied against the overall limit. Thus, we conclude that the limit provision is not severable. 23 rise. While the limit once imposed applies equally to out-of-state and in-state wastes, in effect, it guarantees in-state generators of waste space because the limit can always be raised in order to meet in-state needs. Therefore, we apply the per se test to Regulation 61-99.22 The needs regulation does not survive the per se test for the same reasons the remainder of the challenged South Carolina laws failed to survive. South Carolina has raised no issue of fact as to a state rationale unrelated to the origin of the waste for its needs requirement. D. Primary Jurisdiction Finally, South Carolina attempts to persuade us that the district court erred by failing to defer under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to the EPA in the first instance as to whether South Carolina's laws are constitutional.23 No fixed formula exists for applying the _________________________________________________________________ 22 South Carolina's reliance on Chambers Medical Technologies of South Carolina v. Bryant, 52 F.3d 1252 (4th Cir. 1995), does not aid its cause. South Carolina seeks to establish that the needs regulation is similar to South Carolina's fluctuating cap for infectious waste based on the amount of waste generated in South Carolina alone. In Chambers, we held that the fluctuating cap for infectious waste might pass Commerce Clause scrutiny if it regulated in an evenhanded fashion and had only incidental effects on interstate commerce; whereas it would not be constitutional if it discriminated facially, in effect, or in purpose, thus necessitating that the per se test be applied. Id. at 1262. Here, the regulation discriminates in effect. Thus, the per se test applies. Furthermore, significantly, we noted that the fluctuating cap in Chambers did not operate as a ban on the expansion of facilities. 52 F.3d at 1262. It merely limited the amount of infectious waste any one facility could process. While the South Carolina Code required that a permit be obtained in order to build a new facility and that infectious waste generated out-of-state could only be considered in the needs calculations with DHEC approval, the Chambers court assumed that the DHEC would not deny a permit on a basis violating the Commerce Clause. Id. at 1262 n.15. Thus, in dicta, we suggested in Chambers that outright bans on expansion based on in-state needs only will most likely not survive dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny. 23 As conceded in oral argument, however, South Carolina has not requested that the EPA intervene in this case as an amicus curiae, nor has the EPA sought intervention. 24 doctrine of primary jurisdiction. United States v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956). Generally speaking, the doctrine is designed to coordinate administrative and judicial decision-making by taking advantage of agency expertise and referring issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases which require the exercise of administrative discretion. Id. ; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Elec. Co., 67 F.3d 981, 992 (1st Cir. 1995); Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 592 F.2d 575, 580 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 866 (1979), and cert. denied, 464 U.S. 866 (1983). The district judge refused to refer the instant lawsuit to the EPA under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because he found that there were no issues of fact. Primary jurisdiction, he held, applied only to the referral of factual, not legal, issues. He further reasoned that the constitutional issues . . . [at stake were more] properly within the traditional purview of an Article III court, and are not those to which EPA could conceivably lend some degree of expertise. ETC, 901 F. Supp. at 1029. We review the district court's decision declining to refer the lawsuit to the EPA under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1162 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 921 (1994).24 The district court did not abuse its discretion. The EPA's special _________________________________________________________________ 24 South Carolina contends that the district court's refusal to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was based wholly on erroneous conclusions of laws and should therefore be reviewed de novo. [D]espite what the term [primary jurisdiction] may imply,[it] does not speak to the jurisdictional power of the federal courts. It simply structures the proceedings as a matter of judicial discretion, so as to engender an orderly and sensible coordination of the work of agencies and courts. In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d at 1162 (quoting United States v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 717 F.2d 593, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Thus, the decision not to refer a lawsuit to an agency under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is a discretionary matter which we review for abuse of discretion. Furthermore, because the matter at issue is a constitutional question which lies within this court's expertise, the district court correctly applied the law. 25 expertise is not needed to decide a question of law in a constitutional matter. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. 26