Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
873 F.2d 1477 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory requirement for a "public hearing" does not presumptively require formal, on-the-record adjudicatory procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. An agency's interpretation of an ambiguous hearing provision will be upheld under Chevron deference if it is reasonable and satisfies the constitutional requirements of due process.
Facts:
- In 1976, Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue orders and required a 'public hearing' upon request for certain violations.
- In 1978, the EPA promulgated regulations (Part 22) establishing formal, trial-type hearing procedures for these initial RCRA orders, believing the issues of past conduct and penalties warranted them.
- In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, adding § 3008(h), which authorized the EPA to issue 'corrective action orders' to a wider range of facilities.
- The 1984 amendments also extended the right to a 'public hearing' to recipients of these new § 3008(h) corrective action orders.
- Following the amendments, the EPA promulgated new regulations (Part 24) that established informal hearing procedures for § 3008(h) orders that did not involve penalties or permit revocation.
- These informal procedures did not permit discovery or cross-examination of witnesses, unlike the formal procedures in Part 22.
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of North America, operators of hazardous waste facilities, were subject to these new regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated final regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 24, establishing informal hearing procedures for certain RCRA § 3008(h) orders.
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of North America (Petitioners) filed a petition for review of the regulations directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, naming the EPA as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations, which establish informal adjudicatory procedures for certain corrective action orders under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, represent a permissible interpretation of the statute's 'public hearing' requirement and comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge D.H. Ginsburg
No, the EPA's regulations establishing informal procedures do not violate the statute or the Due Process Clause. An agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term like 'public hearing' is entitled to deference if it is reasonable. The EPA reasonably concluded that these corrective action orders typically involve technical matters rather than credibility-dependent factual disputes, making informal procedures appropriate and efficient. Furthermore, under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the informal procedures satisfy due process because the government's significant interest in cost-effective and prompt enforcement outweighs the limited value that formal trial-type procedures would add in reducing the risk of error in these technically-focused cases.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered administrative law by rejecting the judicial presumption that a generic statutory reference to a 'hearing' requires formal, on-the-record adjudication. By explicitly overruling prior circuit dicta in light of Chevron, the court strengthened agency discretion to design more flexible, informal, and efficient hearing procedures when a statute is ambiguous. This decision empowers agencies to tailor their processes to the specific nature of the disputes they handle, reducing the administrative burden and cost of enforcement actions. It solidified the principle that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable procedural choices unless Congress has clearly specified otherwise.
Unlock the full brief for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency