USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 42
`
`
`
`No. 19-2450
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of a Statement of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`PAGE PROOF BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`KRISTA HUGHES
`Attorney
`Office of General Counsel
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JONATHAN D. BRIGHTBILL
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`ERIC GRANT
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`ANDREW J. DOYLE
`Attorney
`Environment and Natural Resources Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`P.O. Box 7611
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 532-3156
`andrew.doyle@usdoj.gov
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 42
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... viii
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS .................................................. 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`Statutory and regulatory background .................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
`standards ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Periodic EPA review ................................................................... 6
`
`Judicial review ............................................................................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Procedural background .......................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`EPA’s notice of availability and preliminary plan ..................... 8
`
`Status of EPA’s process ............................................................ 11
`
`Petition for review ..................................................................... 12
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 13
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 3 of 42
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`I.
`
`The petition should be dismissed for want of a “final” EPA
`action. ............................................................................................................. 17
`
`A. When EPA made the challenged statement, the
`administrative process had not concluded — and
`it remains pending. .............................................................................. 18
`
`B.
`
`The challenged statement did not determine any person’s
`rights or obligations, and it did not give rise to any legal
`consequences. ...................................................................................... 22
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners’ remaining finality arguments fail. ................................... 23
`
`II.
`
`The petition should be dismissed for want of an EPA
`“promulgation” or “approval.” ...................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`EPA did not, through the challenged statement,
`“promulgate” a standard, prohibition, or limitation
`within the meaning of § 1369(b)(1)(C) or (E). ................................... 26
`
`EPA did not, through the challenged statement,
`“approve” an effluent limitation or other limitation within
`the meaning of § 1369(b)(1)(E). ......................................................... 28
`
`III. Even if the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction, a remand to
`EPA to complete its explanation is the appropriate remedy. ........................ 29
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. 31
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 4 of 42
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`American Paper Institute v. EPA,
` 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981)................................................................................14
`
`American Paper Institute v. EPA,
`882 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1989) ...............................................................................27
`
`
`Appalachian Energy Group v. EPA,
`33 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................... 17, 21
`
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................................................ 2, 17, 21, 22
`
`
`Cahaba Riverkeeper v. EPA,
`806 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................21
`
`
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train,
`430 U.S. 112 (1977) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board.,
`426 U.S. 200 (1976) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co.,
`344 U.S. 17 (1952) ...............................................................................................29
`
`
`Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
`470 U.S. 729 (1985) ...................................................................................... 15, 29
`
`
`General Motors Corp. v. EPA,
`363 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................26
`
`
`Iowa League of Cities v. EPA,
`711 F.3d 844 ........................................................................................................21
`
`
`Kporlor v. Holder,
`597 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 5 of 42
`
`Maier v. EPA,
`114 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 15, 23, 30
`
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) .............................................................................................15
`
`
`In re Murray Energy Corp.,
`788 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 17, 21, 22
`
`
`Nat’l Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co.,
`416 U.S. 267 (1974) .............................................................................................19
`
`
`Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. Dep’t of Defense,
`138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) .......................................................................................8, 24
`
`
`Nat’l Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA,
`752 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 19, 20
`
`
`Nat’l Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA,
`891 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................20
`
`
`Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. EPA,
`635 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................21
`
`
`Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. Browner,
`127 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................24
`
`
`Our Children’s Earth Found. v. EPA,
`527 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 4, 6, 19, 24
`
`
`Pennsylvania Dep’t of Environmental Resources v. EPA,
`618 F.2d 991 (3d Cir. 1980) .................................................................................21
`
`
`Perez v. Cuccinelli,
`949 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2020) ...............................................................................30
`
`
`Rhode Island v. EPA,
`378 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................21
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 6 of 42
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .............................................................................................19
`
`
`Tanners’ Council of America v. Train,
`540 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1976) .............................................................................14
`
`
`Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA,
`259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................15
`
`
`Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 519 (1978) .............................................................................................19
`
`
`Westvaco Corp. v. EPA,
`899 F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................... 16, 21
`
`
`WildEarth Guardians v. EPA,
`751 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................14
`
`
`
` Statutes and Court Rules
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701 ............................................................................................................ 7
`
` U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ................................................................................................14
`
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1251 ....................................................................................................1, 3
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311 ........................................................................................................ 4
`
` 5
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)...........................................................................................4, 6
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(E) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 7 of 42
`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450
`Doc: 44
`Filed: 09/30/2020
`Pg: 7 of 42
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(d) ........................................................................................ 2, 6, 24
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(d) ........................................................................................ 2, 6, 24
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2).............................................................................................27
`33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2) .............................................................................................27
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) .................................................................................. 4, 6, 24, 25
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) .................................................................................. 4, 6, 24, 25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)............................................................................................... 7
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2) ...............................................................................................7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(g) .................................................................................................25
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(g) .................................................................................................25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(g)(1).........................................................................................7, 25
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(g)(1) .........................................................................................7, 25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m) ....................................................................................... 6, 9, 25
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m) ....................................................................................... 6, 9, 25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(A) ..................................................................................6, 25
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(A) .................................................................................. 6, 25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(B) ........................................................................................ 7
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(B) ........................................................................................7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(C) ........................................................................................ 7
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(C) ........................................................................................7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(2) ................................................................................ 7, 11, 19
`33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(2) ................................................................................ 7, 11, 19
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1316 ....................................................................................................4, 7
`33 U.S.C. § 1316 ....................................................................................................4, 7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) ................................................................................................... 7
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) ...................................................................................................7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(1)............................................................................................... 5
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(2).............................................................................................25
`33 U.S.C. § 1317(b)(2) .............................................................................................25
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1318 ........................................................................................................ 2
`33 U.S.C. § 1318 ........................................................................................................2
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1342 ........................................................................................................ 4
`33 U.S.C. § 1342 ........................................................................................................4
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B) ......................................................................................... 5
`33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2) .........................................................................................8, 24
`33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 8, 24
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)................................................................................ 14, 26, 30
`33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) ................................................................................ 14, 26, 30
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 8 of 42
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(C) ................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 8, 26, 27
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(E) ................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 8, 26, 27
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).............................................................................................21
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`40 C.F.R. pt. 432 ......................................................................................................10
`
`40 C.F.R. § 23.2 ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) .............................................................................28
`
`40 C.F.R. § 125.3 ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`40 C.F.R. § 403.6 ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`Federal Register
`39 Fed. Reg. 7894 (Feb. 28, 1974) .......................................................................... 10
`
`40 Fed. Reg. 902 (Jan. 3, 1975) ............................................................................... 10
`
`69 Fed. Reg. 54,476 (Sept. 8, 2004) ........................................................................ 10
`
`84 Fed. Reg. 57,019 (Oct. 24, 2019) ........................................... 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 9 of 42
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`Clean Water Act
`
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Joint Appendix
`
`Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment
`Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers
`Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center
`for Biological Diversity, Comite Civico del Valle,
`Environment America, Food & Water Watch, the
`Humane Society of the United States, and
`
`Waterkeeper Alliance
`Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14
`(Oct. 2019)
`
`APA
`
`CWA (or Act)
`
`
`
`
`
`EPA (or Agency)
`
`J.A.
`
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Plan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 10 of 42
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”)
`
`is in the midst of a public notice-and-comment process in which the Agency has
`
`proposed not to revise certain regulations under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1251 et seq., which address pollutant discharges from the meat and poultry
`
`products industry. Cape Fear River Watch, et al. (“Petitioners”) seek review of a
`
`statement that EPA made at the beginning of the process that “no additional
`
`categories warrant new or revised effluent guidelines at this time.” 84 Fed. Reg.
`
`57,019, 57,019 (Oct. 24, 2019), Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) ___; Preliminary Effluent
`
`Guidelines Program Plan 14 (Oct. 2019) (“Preliminary Plan”) p. 1-1, J.A. ___.
`
`When EPA shared that tentative conclusion (“at this time”), the Agency
`
`simultaneously solicited public comment respecting it. 84 Fed. Reg. at 57,019,
`
`J.A. ___. And at that time, the Agency further advised that its most recent review
`
`of effluent guidelines was “not yet complete,” and that it would share results in the
`
`near future. Preliminary Plan p. 3-2, J.A. ___.
`
`The Clean Water Act provides this Court with jurisdiction to review only
`
`final EPA actions to “promulgate” or “approve” certain specified standards,
`
`prohibitions, and limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(C) and (E). Petitioners point
`
`to no final and reviewable decision by EPA. The administrative process remains
`
`pending. Petitioners are not challenging any “final” agency action,
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 11 of 42
`
`“promulgation,” or “approval” within the meaning of these operative jurisdictional
`
`terms. Their petition should therefore be dismissed.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`(A) When EPA made the challenged statement and commenced a notice-
`
`and-comment process, the Agency invoked 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(d), 1314(b),
`
`1314(g), 1314(m), 1316, 1317(b), and 1318. 84 Fed. Reg. at 57,019, J.A. ___.
`
`(B) This Court lacks jurisdiction. The challenged statement does not
`
`constitute “final” agency action under the two-part test set forth in Bennett v.
`
`Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997). See infra pp. 17-26. In addition, the
`
`challenged statement is not an EPA “promulgation” or “approval” of a relevant
`
`standard, prohibition, or limitation within the meaning of 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1369(b)(1)(C) and (E). See infra pp. 26-29.
`
`
`
`(C) EPA made the challenged statement on October 24, 2019. 84 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 57,019, J.A. ___; Preliminary Plan p. 1-1, J.A. ___. Petitioners filed a
`
`petition for review on December 18, 2019, or 64 days later. Doc. 3-1.
`
`
`
`(D) The petition is from an agency statement that is not reviewable under
`
`the finality requirement and 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`
`
`1. Whether jurisdiction is lacking because the challenged statement is
`
`not a “final” EPA action.
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 12 of 42
`
`
`
`2. Whether jurisdiction is lacking because the challenged statement does
`
`not represent an EPA “promulgation” or “approval” of a standard, prohibition, or
`
`limitation within the meaning of the Clean Water Act’s direct appellate review
`
`provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(C) and (E).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction, whether it
`
`would serve the interests of fairness and meaningful review to remand the
`
`challenged statement to EPA for a complete explanation.
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`All pertinent statutes and regulations are contained in the Addendum to the
`
`Opening Brief for Petitioners.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Statutory and regulatory background
`
`1.
`
`Effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
`standards
`
`The Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.,
`
`prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters except as authorized by
`
`specified sections. Id. § 1311(a). One of the Act’s major strategies is to limit the
`
`discharge of pollutants based upon various technology-based levels of control. Id.
`
`§§ 1311(b)(1)(A), 1311(b)(2)(A), 1311(b)(2)(E), 1316, 1317(b). To that end, EPA
`
`establishes by rulemaking (regulations) technology-based requirements for
`
`industrial “categories of sources,” through what the Act refers to as “effluent
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 13 of 42
`
`limitations guidelines and standards.” Id. §§ 1314(b), 1316. (Unless specially
`
`noted, this brief refers to these rules as “effluent guidelines.”) Developed pursuant
`
`to factors specified in 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) for existing sources and in 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1316 for new sources, effluent guidelines are given effect to sources through
`
`National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits. See 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1342; EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board,
`
`426 U.S. 200, 205 (1976). “The specific effluent limitations contained in each
`
`NPDES permit are determined by the terms of more general ‘effluent limitation
`
`guidelines,’ which are separately promulgated by the EPA.” Our Children’s Earth
`
`Foundation v. EPA, 527 F.3d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 2008).
`
`EPA promulgates effluent guidelines for existing sources of direct
`
`discharges under 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 and 1314. EPA identifies the pollutants to be
`
`regulated in a particular industry category or subcategory of sources, as well as a
`
`technology that represents the statutorily prescribed level of control for those
`
`pollutants. Where EPA determines that a technology satisfies the statutory criteria,
`
`including economic considerations, EPA then calculates the discharge limitations
`
`that correspond to the application of that technology. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours
`
`& Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130-31 (1977). EPA’s longstanding practice has
`
`been to combine the requirements of § 1311(b)(2) and § 1314(b) into one
`
`rulemaking process. See 430 U.S. at 124, 136 (sustaining EPA’s approach).
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 14 of 42
`
`In the absence of applicable effluent guidelines, the NPDES permitting
`
`authority, typically a state agency, determines technology-based limitations. The
`
`permitting authority applies the same statutory factors that EPA would use in
`
`promulgating national categorical effluent limitations guidelines, except that the
`
`permitting authority applies them in a facility-specific context. See 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3.
`
`EPA also issues categorical pretreatment standards for pollutant discharges
`
`that are indirect, namely those introduced to publicly owned treatment works
`
`which, in turn, discharge to surface water. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1317(b).
`
`Section 1311(b) of the Act specifies the level of control while § 1317(b)(1)
`
`requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing pretreatment standards “for
`
`those pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by such
`
`treatment works or which would interfere with the operation of such treatment
`
`works.” A similar statutory provision, § 1314(g), requires EPA to publish
`
`guidelines for the pretreatment of those pollutants which it “determines are not
`
`susceptible to treatment by publicly owned treatment works.”
`
`Unlike effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards are self-implementing, in
`
`that their enforceability does not depend on the incorporation of pretreatment
`
`standards into facility-specific NPDES permits. See 40 C.F.R. § 403.6.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 15 of 42
`
`Overall, it is estimated that EPA’s effluent guidelines and pretreatment
`
`standards “apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 . . . direct dischargers, as well as
`
`another 129,000 facilities that discharge to [publicly owned treatment works],”
`
`exclusive of active construction sites. Preliminary Plan p. 2-1, J.A. ___. Further,
`
`“EPA estimates that the regulations altogether prevent the discharge of over 700
`
`billion pounds of pollutants annually.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Periodic EPA review
`
`The Act requires EPA to periodically review effluent guidelines and
`
`pretreatment standards. As to direct pollutant discharges, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(d)
`
`requires EPA to “review[] at least every five years and, if appropriate, revise[]” the
`
`effluent limitations established under § 1311(b)(2). Section 1314(b) provides that,
`
`once EPA promulgates effluent guidelines pursuant to that Section, EPA must “at
`
`least annually thereafter” “revise, if appropriate, such regulations.” Under
`
`longstanding practice, EPA conducts reviews pursuant to § 1311(d) and § 1314(b)
`
`“simultaneously.” Our Children’s Earth, 527 F.3d at 849.
`
`Section 1314(m) of the Act, enacted subsequent to the foregoing provisions
`
`as part of the CWA Amendments in 1987, requires EPA “biennially” to “publish in
`
`the Federal Register a plan which shall” among other things “establish a schedule
`
`for the annual review and revision of promulgated effluent guidelines, in
`
`accordance with [§ 1314(b)].” 33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(A). Section 1314(m)
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 16 of 42
`
`further requires that EPA “provide for public review and comment on the plan
`
`prior to final publication.” Id. § 1314(m)(2).1
`
`With respect to indirect pollutant discharges, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) provides
`
`that, once EPA establishes pretreatment standards in accordance with that
`
`provision, EPA must “from time to time, as control technology, processes,
`
`operating methods, or other alternatives change, revise such standards.” Section
`
`1314(g)(1) provides that, once EPA publishes guidelines for pretreatment
`
`standards for sources in accordance with that provision, EPA must “review at least
`
`annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise” them. Here again, although there
`
`are timing-of-review and other differences between § 1317(b) and § 1314(g), as a
`
`matter of practice, EPA conducts the reviews called for under those two provisions
`
`simultaneously.
`
`3.
`
`Judicial review
`
`
`
`Ordinarily, in the absence of a contrary statutory provision, a final action
`
`that EPA takes pursuant to the CWA is subject to review in district court pursuant
`
`to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Separately,
`
`
`1 The plan must also “identify categories of sources discharging toxics or
`nonconventional pollutants for which guidelines . . . have not previously been
`published” under § 1314(b)(2) and § 1316. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(m)(1)(B).
`(Section 1316 governs “Federal standards of performance for new sources.”)
`Further, the plan must “establish a schedule for promulgation of effluent guidelines
`for categories identified” in the immediately preceding subparagraph (B). Id.
`§ 1314(m)(1)(C).
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 17 of 42
`
`the CWA provides that “any citizen may commence a civil action” in district court
`
`“where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty . . .
`
`which is not discretionary with the Administrator.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2).
`
`
`
`Certain final actions taken by EPA under the CWA are not reviewable in
`
`district court. The CWA “enumerates seven categories of EPA actions that must
`
`be challenged directly in the federal courts of appeals.” Nat’l Ass’n of
`
`Manufacturers v. Dep’t of Defense, 138 S. Ct. 617, 628 (2018). Two such
`
`categories are EPA action “in promulgating any effluent standard, prohibition, or
`
`pretreatment standard under [33 U.S.C.] section 1317,” 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(C),
`
`and “in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under
`
`[33 U.S.C.] sections 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345,” id. § 1369(b)(1)(E).
`
`
`
`With respect to any EPA action that falls within the scope of § 1369(b)(1), a
`
`petition for review generally must be filed within 120 days of such action. See 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 23.2.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Procedural background
`
`1.
`
`EPA’s notice of availability and preliminary plan
`
`
`
`In October 2019, the Federal Register published a “notice of availability”
`
`from EPA. 84 Fed. Reg. at 57,019-20, J.A. ___-___. The purpose of the notice
`
`was to announce the availability of EPA’s “Preliminary Effluent Guidelines
`
`Program Plan 14.” Id. at 57,019, J.A. ___. The number “14” reflects the fact that
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 44 Filed: 09/30/2020 Pg: 18 of 42
`
`EPA has completed 13 plans since Congress added § 1314(m) to the CWA in
`
`1987. See Preliminary Plan p. 2-5, J.A. ___; supra p. 6.
`
`
`
`The notice described the preliminary plan as identifying “new or existing
`
`industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards” and
`
`providing “a schedule for their development.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 57,019, J.A. ___.
`
`Further, the notice stated that “EPA developed Preliminary Plan 14 based on its
`
`review and analysis of data from 2016, 2017, and 2018 as part of its annual review
`
`process.” Id. And the notice invited public comment on all aspects of the
`
`preliminary plan: “EPA requests comments and information on the overall content
`
`of Preliminary Plan 14,” as well as more specific topics related to EPA’s
`
`introduction of new analyses and tools that the Agency is developing to improve its
`
`annual review and biennial planning process. Id. at 57,020, J.A. ___.
`
`
`
`As referenced in EPA’s notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 57,019-20, J.A. ___-___, one
`
`of the subjects of the preliminary plan is an ongoing rulemaking and expected
`
`schedule pertaining to the steam electric power generator industrial category. See
`
`Preliminary Plan pp. 1-1, 3-6, 5-1, & 6-2, J.A. ___, ___, ___, ___. But more
`
`pertinent here, the preliminary plan addresses, to varying degrees, all other existing
`
`industrial categories. See Preliminary Plan pp. 6-1 to 6-2, J.A. ___-___.
`
`
`
`In particular, with respect to the meat and poultry products industrial
`
`category, the preliminary plan notes that the Agency had promulgated effluent
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-