Environmental Integrity Project v. McCarthy
Civil Action No. 2016-0842
| D.D.C. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (coalition of environmental groups) sued EPA Administrator under RCRA citizen-suit provision, alleging failure to perform nondiscretionary duties to periodically review and, where necessary, revise Subtitle D classification criteria (since 1988) and state plan guidelines (since 1981).
- Plaintiffs seek court orders requiring EPA to review and, if necessary, revise those regulations and to do so by a date certain (they represent relief is procedural—i.e., to initiate rulemakings on a schedule).
- Proposed intervenors: State of North Dakota, American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and TIPRO—seek to intervene as of right (Rule 24(a)) or permissively (Rule 24(b)), asserting concrete economic, regulatory, and procedural interests.
- Core legal question: whether proposed intervenors have Article III standing (required to intervene as of right in this Circuit) and, separately, whether permissive intervention should be allowed.
- The court framed the case as primarily about timing/scheduling of agency action (ordering EPA to act by a date certain), not about dictating substantive regulatory content.
- Court denied intervention: movants lack Article III standing to intervene as of right and, even if standing not required for permissive intervention, their participation would not be helpful and could delay resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed intervenors may intervene as of right (Rule 24(a)) | Plaintiffs seek only an order to require EPA to review/revise by a date certain (procedural relief); movants lack injury from mere scheduling | Movants claim they face concrete economic/regulatory harm if EPA eventually issues stricter rules and that complaint seeks substantive relief | Denied: movants lack Article III standing (injury speculative — only possibility of future regulation); thus cannot intervene as of right |
| Whether plaintiffs' complaint requests substantive mandatory revisions (beyond scheduling) | Plaintiffs represent Complaint seeks only scheduling to compel EPA to initiate rulemaking and decide whether to revise; does not dictate substance | Movants argue Complaint's prayer ("issue necessary revisions") seeks substantive judicially-ordered stricter rules harming movants | Court accepts plaintiffs’ representation; treats relief as timeline to initiate rulemaking, not substantive command, aligning with D.C. Circuit precedent |
| Whether movants identify a cognizable procedural injury | Movants assert they would be deprived of pre-decision participation and face truncated notice-and-comment, harming concrete interests | Plaintiffs/EPA and precedent: no statutory procedural right to participate in agency internal review; speculative compressed process insufficient | Denied: movants fail to identify a procedural right that would be violated; alleged procedural injury too speculative to confer standing |
| Whether permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)) should be granted | Movants claim subject-matter expertise and that their participation would aid the Court and protect state/industry interests | Plaintiffs/EPA: case is narrow and procedural; movants' substantive input would not aid and could delay; standing unclear for permissive intervention in this Circuit | Denied: even assuming permissive intervention does not require Article III standing, court exercises discretion to deny because movants' substantive interests are not helpful for the narrow procedural issues and would risk delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (possibility of future adverse regulation insufficient for Article III standing where court only prescribes schedule for agency rulemaking)
- In re Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d 502 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (proposed intervenors lacked standing where consent decree only set timetables and did not dictate substantive rulemaking)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes constitutional standing elements)
- In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., 704 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (procedural-injury doctrine requires linkage to a concrete interest protected by the procedure)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (older standing-like Rule 24(a) analysis; court declined to rely on it over more recent standing precedent)