Lexplug logoLexplug

In Re Bluewater Network

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
344 U.S. App. D.C. 175, 234 F.3d 1305, 2001 A.M.C. 1709 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a statute contains a clear, non-discretionary command for an agency to promulgate regulations by a specific deadline, the agency's prolonged failure to act and disavowal of future action constitutes an unreasonable delay that may be compelled by a writ of mandamus.


Facts:

  • In 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound, causing a massive oil spill.
  • In response, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).
  • OPA § 4110 required the Coast Guard to establish regulations for both minimum standards and use requirements for tank level and pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices on tankers by August 18, 1991.
  • OPA § 4116(c) required the Coast Guard to initiate regulations defining areas where single-hulled tankers must have two escort vessels, including three named locations, by February 18, 1991.
  • In March 1997, nearly six years after the deadline, the Coast Guard issued a temporary, two-year rule establishing standards for TLPM devices but did not require their installation or use.
  • The temporary TLPM rule expired on April 28, 1999.
  • In November 1999, the Coast Guard announced it had completed its action on the TLPM rulemaking and would take no further action, leaving no regulations in place.
  • The Coast Guard issued regulations for the three named escort areas but has not initiated rulemaking to define any "other waters" for such requirements.

Procedural Posture:

  • Bluewater Network and Ocean Advocates filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  • Petitioners sought to compel the U.S. Coast Guard to promulgate regulations required by § 4110 and § 4116(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an agency's failure to promulgate permanent regulations required by a statute, nine years after the statutory deadline has passed, constitute an unreasonable delay that justifies a writ of mandamus compelling rulemaking?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards

Yes, with respect to the TLPM device regulations, but No, with respect to the "other waters" escort regulations. The Coast Guard’s failure to promulgate any regulations under § 4110 is a blatant violation of a clear statutory duty, whereas § 4116(c) does not create a sufficiently clear duty regarding "other waters" to merit mandamus relief. The statute indisputably commands the Coast Guard to establish both compliance standards and use requirements for TLPMs by a 1991 deadline, which it has failed to do. The agency cannot excuse its inaction by pointing to its own expired, too-stringent temporary rule, especially when it has disavowed any intent to take future action. In contrast, the mandate in § 4116(c) to regulate "other waters" is not a clear, non-discretionary duty, as the term "including" is not specific enough to compel the agency to identify and regulate additional unnamed areas. Petitioners' inability to articulate what a mandamus order would compel demonstrates the provision's lack of a clear duty.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in enforcing clear statutory mandates against recalcitrant administrative agencies through the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus. It clarifies that an agency cannot evade a non-discretionary duty by issuing temporary rules that expire or by setting unachievable technology-forcing standards and then abandoning the effort. The case also delineates the limits of mandamus, emphasizing that the remedy is only available for violations of a 'clear duty to act,' not for statutory language that is vague or grants the agency discretion. This holding serves as a precedent for compelling agency action in cases of unreasonable delay but also protects agency discretion where statutory commands are ambiguous.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query In Re Bluewater Network (2000) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for In Re Bluewater Network