Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency
711 F.3d 844
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- League seeks direct appellate review of two EPA letters to Senator Grassley, alleging new regulatory requirements for municipal sewer water treatment.
- League claims EPA lacked statutory authority and violated the APA by not using notice-and-comment procedures.
- June 2011 and September 2011 letters address mixing zones (bacteria) and blending during secondary treatment at POTWs.
- EPA contends letters discuss existing regulatory requirements or serve as general policy statements or interpretive rules.
- Court determines subject-matter jurisdiction exists under CWA and APA, vacates letters as procedurally invalid, and remands for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the letters qualify as promulgations under §509(b)(1)(E)? | League treats letters as binding promulgations. | EPA views letters as non-promulgatory guidance. | Yes; letters are promulagations binding in practice. |
| Are the letters ‘effluent limitations or other limitations’ under §509(b)(1)(E)? | Letters create new effluent/other limitations affecting discharges. | Letters merely discuss existing requirements or interpretations. | Yes; both mixing zones and blending constitute limitations under §509(b)(1)(E). |
| Is the blending rule authorized by the Clean Water Act, or ultra vires? | Blending restrictions exceed EPA authority by applying within-facility effluent limits. | Blending is a permissible interpretation with respect to bypass and secondary treatment. | Blending rule exceeds statutory authority; vacated. |
| Is the June 2011 mixing-zone rule procedurally valid under the APA? | Procedural safeguards were bypassed; rulemaking required notice and comment. | Letters are interpretive/guidance and not subject to notice-and-comment. | Procedural invalidity; mixing-zone rule vacated. |
| Is the case ripe and do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the letters? | League has associational and procedural injury; imminent harm from new rules. | Lack of standing or not ripe for review. | Yes; League has standing and case is ripe for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 (1980) (promulgation analogies for direct appellate review)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (binding effect of agency pronouncements in review)
- NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (notice-and-comment integrity vs. delay concerns)
- Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (statutory interpretation of ‘discharges’ and limitations)
- Ubbelohde v. EPA, 330 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2003) (binding effect and finality considerations for agency actions)