Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
• Judicial deference
• Nondelegation
• Executive control
• Procedural rights
• Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia


Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency was a case decided on March 25, 2013, by the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in which the court held that certain guidance documents issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) constituted unlawfully promulgated regulations. The EPA claimed that the documents demonstrated interpretive rules—a form of agency guidance that seeks to clarify existing regulations. The court disagreed and ruled that the documents promulgated new regulations by establishing prohibitions against previously permissible activities without adhering to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Moreover, the court held that the agency had exceeded its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The EPA issued two letters that the agency claimed established interpretative rules prohibiting municipal water treatment processes known as mixing zones and blending. The Iowa League of Cities argued that the letters constituted new regulations, rather than new interpretations of existing rules, and that the EPA had failed to lawfully enact the regulations according to the rulemaking procedures required by the APA. The League also argued that the agency's prohibition on blending exceeded its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.
  • The issue: Do the EPA's letters constitute interpretive rules or new regulations? Did the agency exceed its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act?
  • The outcome: The Eighth Circuit vacated the EPA's prohibitions against mixing zones and blending. The court argued that the agency had unlawfully promulgated new regulations through guidance documents and had exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act.


    • Why it matters: The Eighth Circuit affirmed that new agency regulations must be promulgated through the rulemaking procedures of the APA and cannot be implemented through guidance documents.[1]

    You can review the court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    What are interpretive rules?

    See also: Guidance

    Interpretive rules are a form of agency guidance—a term in administrative law used to describe a variety of documents created by government agencies that aim to explain, interpret, or advise interested parties about rules, laws, and procedures. Guidance documents clarify and affect how agencies administer regulations and programs. However, they are not legally binding in the same way as rules issued through the rulemaking procedures of the APA.[2][3][4]

    Besides interpretive rules, other types of agency guidance include policy statements and contemporaneous guidance. Agencies issue guidance through a variety of documents, including memoranda, notices, bulletins, directives, news releases, letters, and blog posts.[3][5]

    Case background

    The EPA issued six guidance documents in 2010—including letters, memoranda, and a Federal Register notice—that the Iowa League of Cities claimed constituted new regulatory prohibitions against municipal water treatment processes known as mixing zones and blending. The League called upon U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to clarify the agency's position. The EPA sent two letters to Senator Grassley stating that the guidance documents provided interpretations of existing regulations and did not implement new rules.[6]

    The Iowa League of Cities disagreed with the EPA's position and argued that the letters constituted unlawfully promulgated regulations because they established binding prohibitions against previously permissible practices without adhering to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The League also claimed that the EPA's blending rule exceeded its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.[6]

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner, Iowa League of Cities, challenged the EPA's position in its two letters to Senator Grassley. The League argued that the letters constituted unlawfully promulgated regulations because they created binding prohibitions against previously permissible practices. The League also argued that the EPA's blending rule exceeded its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.[1]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    Whether the policies in the EPA's letters to Senator Grassley constitute unlawful regulations and whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act.[1]

    Outcome

    The Eighth Circuit vacated the EPA's two letters to Senator Grassley on the grounds that they unlawfully promulgated new rules by implementing binding requirements for municipal water treatment processes without adhering to the APA's rulemaking requirements. The court also vacated the blending rule because it exceeded the agency's regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.[1]

    The EPA filed a petition for rehearing in the case on May 9, 2013, which the Eighth Circuit denied on July 10, 2013. The agency did not appeal the ruling, but it moved to limit the impact of the decision by issuing statements declaring that the judgment only applied in states under the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit.[7][8]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, "Iowa League of Cities v. Environmental Protection Agency—Opinion," March 25, 2013
    2. ↑ The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 23, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Administrative Conference of the United States, "Guidance in the Rulemaking Process," June 10, 2014
    4. ↑ Administrative Conference of the United States, "Recommendation 92-2: Agency Policy Statements," June 18, 1992
    5. ↑ Forbes, "An Inventory of Federal Agency Guidance Documents," March 20, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Squire Patton Boggs, "8th Circuit Vacates EPA’s Mixing Zone and Blending Prohibitions," April 5, 2013
    7. ↑ Squire Patton Boggs, "USEPA Seeks Rehearing of 8th Circuit’s Blending Decision in Iowa League of Cities v. USEPA," May 31, 2013
    8. ↑ Squire Patton Boggs, "8th Circuit Denies USEPA’s Petition for Rehearing of Blending Decision in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA," July 17, 2013
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Iowa_League_of_Cities_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency&oldid=9175073"