## Facts

- RCRA, as amended in 1984, required EPA to promulgate final permitting standards for certain underground hazardous-waste tanks “not later than March 1, 1985.”
- EPA did not promulgate the final standards by the statutory date.
- EPA submitted draft regulations to OMB for review under Executive Order 12,291; OMB’s review began after the statutory deadline and continued for months.
- During review, OMB sought major substantive changes, including shifting from an approach aimed at containing all leaks to a more risk-based approach.
- Environmental plaintiffs sued to compel EPA to issue the regulations by a court-ordered deadline and to obtain injunctive relief limiting OMB’s interference in future EPA rulemakings.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; EPA/OMB urged a later compliance date than plaintiffs requested.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under RCRA to compel EPA to perform a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate regulations and to set a firm deadline.
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction and an adequate basis to issue prospective injunctive relief restricting OMB’s role in EPA rulemaking when OMB review contributed to missing a statutory deadline.
3. What deadline the court should impose to remedy EPA’s failure to meet Congress’s timetable.

## Decision

- The court held RCRA imposed a clear, nondiscretionary duty on EPA to promulgate the underground-tank permitting standards by March 1, 1985, and that EPA failed to comply.
- The court exercised jurisdiction under RCRA’s citizen-suit provision to order EPA to promulgate the regulations by a date certain.
- The court ordered EPA to promulgate the final regulations no later than June 30, 1986.
- The court declined to issue an injunction against OMB restricting its review of EPA regulations, while criticizing OMB’s role in delay.
- Summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part to both sides: plaintiffs obtained an order compelling rulemaking (with a later deadline than sought), and defendants avoided an injunction against OMB.

## Legal Principles

- Mandatory statutory language setting a date-certain rulemaking deadline creates a nondiscretionary duty enforceable in a citizen suit.
- A district court may compel performance of a nondiscretionary duty and impose a specific compliance deadline when the statutory deadline has passed.
- In setting equitable relief for missed deadlines, the court may balance Congress’s demand for prompt action against the practical time needed to complete complex rulemaking.
- Executive-branch regulatory review may not be used to justify missing a congressionally mandated deadline; presidential oversight must yield to clear statutory commands.
- Courts may be reluctant to issue prospective injunctions directly regulating OMB’s review process, even when the record shows that review contributed to delay.

## Conclusion

The court enforced RCRA’s mandatory timetable by ordering EPA to promulgate overdue underground-tank standards by June 30, 1986, but it refused to impose injunctive limits on OMB’s review, instead signaling that executive review cannot lawfully cause agencies to miss statutory deadlines.


Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Thomas, 627 F. Supp. 566 (D.D.C. 1986)