Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
8 F.3d 73, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20306, 37 ERC (BNA) 1729 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency action may be deemed arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act if the agency fails to provide a rational explanation for a decision that, on its face, appears illogical, inconsistent with past practice, or frustrates the known intent of a collaborating state agency, even if the agency has complied with all procedural requirements.
Facts:
- For years, Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company ('the Company') operated its oil refinery under a discharge permit that utilized a 'mixing zone' analysis to measure pollutants.
- The Company applied to the EPA to renew its permit in May 1988.
- While in the process of reformulating its mixing zone regulations, Puerto Rico's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) issued a draft and then a final certification to the EPA that omitted a mixing zone analysis.
- Four days before issuing the final certification for the Company on July 24, 1990, the EQB had formally promulgated new regulations to reinstitute a mixing zone analysis methodology.
- The Company stated that its refinery could not operate if forced to meet the pollution standards in the new permit without a mixing zone analysis.
- On August 17, 1990, the Company formally asked the EQB to reconsider its certification and include a mixing zone.
- On September 7, 1990, before the EPA issued its final permit, the EQB informed the EPA that it was actively reconsidering its certification and might alter it.
- The Company also wrote to the EPA in September 1990, requesting that it delay final action until the EQB completed its reconsideration.
Procedural Posture:
- The Company sought administrative review within the EPA after the agency issued the final permit on September 28, 1990, which automatically stayed the permit's effect.
- In June 1992, an EPA regional administrator reaffirmed the permit but continued the stay pending a further administrative appeal.
- The Company appealed that decision to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board in July 1992.
- On October 26, 1992, the Environmental Appeals Board issued a final order refusing further review.
- The Company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for review of the EPA's final order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue a final pollution discharge permit arbitrary and capricious when it refused to wait for a state agency's ongoing reconsideration of a key permit term, and the EPA offered no substantive reason for a decision that produced a seemingly irrational and economically devastating result?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the EPA's decision is arbitrary and capricious. While an agency is entitled to deference, its decisions must be rational. Here, the EPA's action is procedurally correct but substantively nonsensical. The agency failed to provide any reasoned explanation for its refusal to await the outcome of the EQB's reconsideration, especially when the EQB's omission of the mixing zone was contrary to its past practice and its newly promulgated regulations. The EPA may not ignore an important aspect of the problem, such as the severe economic impact and the inconsistency of the result, and hide behind its procedural regulations. The decision creates an arbitrary outcome, potentially penalizing only those facilities permitted within a brief 'window' where the EQB's policy was in flux, which runs contrary to the principle of treating similar cases similarly. Without a rational explanation for this outcome, the agency's action cannot stand.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the 'hard look' doctrine in administrative law, emphasizing that procedural correctness does not insulate an agency's decision from judicial review for rationality. The ruling reinforces that courts can and will vacate agency actions that are substantively arbitrary, even in technical areas, if the agency fails to articulate a logical reason for its choice. It limits an agency's ability to mechanically enforce procedural rules to achieve an outcome that is inconsistent with the clear, albeit delayed, substantive goals of a partner state agency. The decision underscores that an agency must justify not only its actions but also its inaction, such as a refusal to wait for new information that is critical to a rational outcome.
Unlock the full brief for Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency