177 F. Supp. 3d 36
D.D.C.2016Background
- In 2010 EPA surveyed 733 steam-electric power plants and gathered vendor data to inform proposed effluent guidelines; EPA used the data in rulemaking published in 2013 and finalized in 2015.
- Plaintiffs (Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Sierra Club) filed a FOIA request (July 2013) seeking plant-level pollutant data, treatment costs, and technology performance information; EPA produced some records and withheld others as confidential business information (CBI) under FOIA Exemption 4.
- Plaintiffs sued in July 2014 to compel disclosure; EPA completed CBI determinations in February 2015 and withheld additional material, prompting cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Parties agree the withheld material constitutes CBI under FOIA Exemption 4; Plaintiffs argue the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 1318(b) independently mandates disclosure and thus precludes EPA from invoking FOIA exemptions.
- The district court framed the narrow legal question as whether § 1318(b) displaces FOIA’s exemptions (and FOIA-based judicial relief) and concluded it does not; court granted EPA summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWA § 1318(b)'s "shall be available to the public" language requires EPA to disclose information even if exempt under FOIA Exemption 4 | § 1318(b) mandates disclosure of information obtained under § 1318(a) except for trade secrets, so EPA cannot withhold CBI under FOIA | CWA does not expressly displace FOIA; EPA may lawfully treat CBI as exempt under FOIA Exemption 4 and withhold it | Court held § 1318(b) does not displace FOIA exemptions; EPA may withhold CBI under Exemption 4 |
| Whether a later statute (CWA) may implicitly modify FOIA absent an express statement, given APA § 559 (no implied repeal/modification of APA provisions) | CWA’s disclosure mandate should supersede FOIA’s broader withholding rules without express language | Section 559 prevents implied modification of FOIA/APA; Congress must clearly express intent to depart from FOIA; CWA lacks such express language or a comprehensive alternative scheme | Court held § 559 requires express congressional intent to alter FOIA; CWA § 1318 does not meet that standard, so FOIA governs |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (court must determine de novo whether agency improperly withheld records under FOIA)
- Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (FOIA enacted to pierce administrative secrecy)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (FOIA's basic objective is disclosure)
- Gersh & Danielson v. EPA, 871 F. Supp. 407 (D. Colo. 1994) (contrary district-court decision holding CWA § 1318 displaces FOIA exemptions)
- Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (later statute must plainly express intent to depart from APA/FOIA norms)
- Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (FOIA is an across-the-board statute covering requests unless specifically exempted)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (confidential business information can be property protected by the Fifth Amendment)