District of Columbia Department of the Environment v. East Capitol Exxon
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 169
D.C.2013Background
- DDOE seeks review of OAH’s dismissal of one of three infractions against East Capitol Exxon for Stage II vapor recovery defects.
- OAH found two of the three charges proved and reduced fines; one charge was dismissed.
- ALJ rejected DDOE’s interpretation that each defective component constitutes a separate infraction.
- DDOE sought reconsideration; OAH did not rule on it, so it was denied by operation of law.
- Court remands to OAH to apply deference to DDOE’s interpretation and assess reasonableness of that interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAH must defer to DDOE’s interpretation of its regulations. | DDOE argues deference to its interpretation is required. | East Capitol Exxon did not respond; no argument presented. | Remand to OAH to apply deference and re-evaluate the third charge. |
| Whether DDOE’s “system” interpretation (hose vs. pump) is reasonable. | DDOE contends each hose is a separate system and each defect counts separately. | Exxon challenges the interpretation but did not brief. | Remand to assess reasonableness of DDOE’s interpretation. |
| Whether OAH erred by not deferring to DDOE’s interpretation in the first instance. | DDOE seeks reversal of OAH’s dismissal on deference grounds. | No response. | Reversal and remand for deference application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 663 A.2d 489 (D.C.1995) (Chevron-based deference to agency interpretations supported by statutory purposes)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (S. Ct. 1984) (establishes deferential framework for agency interpretations)
- Berkley v. D.C. Transit, Inc., 950 A.2d 749 (D.C.2008) (deference to agency findings when supported by substantial evidence)
- 1330 Connecticut Ave., Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 669 A.2d 708 (D.C.1995) (deference to agency interpretation of regulations; expert agency)
- Washington v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Pub. Works, 954 A.2d 945 (D.C.2008) (agency deference context in administrative appeals)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 975 A.2d 823 (D.C.2009) (limits on deference to OAH interpretations)
- Appleseed Ctr. for Law & Justice, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins., Sec., & Banking, 54 A.3d 1188 (D.C.2012) (review of agency interpretation; concerns with deference when agency speaks on regulation)
- Brown v. Watts, 993 A.2d 529 (D.C.2010) (integration of agency interpretation and statutory framework)
- Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (U.S.2013) (discussion of limits to Auer deference in agency interpretations)