July 23, 2014

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Waiver Rule

Adopting the legal arguments made by Paul H. Schneider and Afiyfa H. Ellington, the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court unanimously upheld DEP’s controversial “Waiver Rules,” which allow DEP to relax or waive strict compliance with its regulations.  The rules specify four circumstances in which DEP may consider a waiver: (1) when rules conflict, (2) where strict compliance would be unduly burdensome, (3) where the waiver would achieve a net environmental benefit, or (4) in a public emergency.  The rules specify circumstances in which DEP may not waive rules, including “[a] requirement of, or duty imposed by, a Federal or State statute or Federal regulation, unless that statute or regulation provides for such a waiver.”  Finally, the rules specify the criteria upon which DEP will evaluate waiver requests, define key terms used in the rules, and require public notice.

Rejecting an appeal brought by over two dozen self-styled “environmental” groups,  the Appellate Division held that DEP has the authority to adopt and implement the Waiver Rules.  The Court held that notwithstanding “the absence of an express legislative grant or prohibition”, State agencies have “inherent authority. . . to waive their regulatory requirements through regulations . . . which establish appropriate standards for the exercise of the agency’s waiver decision-making, while still honoring requirements imposed by statutes or federal law.”  Similarly, the Court disagreed with the appellants that DEP cannot adopt a “blanket” waiver rule that applies to virtually all programs administered by DEP.  The Court stated “appellants point to no authority that DEP cannot cut across intramural boundaries by adopting department-wide rules to deal with overlapping concerns or subjects.”  Finally, the Court also rejected claims that the rules lack adequate standards.

As an unexpected bonus to the business community, the Court agreed with the appellants that “guidance” documents and forms posted on DEP’s website after formal adoption of the waiver rule are unenforceable because they are de facto rules promulgated by DEP without following the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  Yet the Court rejected appellants’ claim that this deficiency is fatal to the DEP’s implementation of the waiver rule.  The Court emphasized “there are sufficient substantive standards in the waiver rules for applicants to submit, and the decision-maker to evaluate, waiver applications.”

DEP relies upon similar guidance documents in a wide variety of the programs it implements, often to the chagrin of developers and others in the regulated community because the guidance may impose requirements and restrictions not found in the text of the rules.  This decision provides a basis for the business community to challenge these guidance documents in other situations.

The GH&C attorneys represented the New Jersey Builders Association, with funding provided by the National Association of Home Builders.

© 2014 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Paul H. Schneider, GIordano Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Mr. Schneider, co-chair of the Litigation Practice Area, focuses his practice in environmental, redevelopment, land use, regulatory, real estate and affordable housing law, and litigation. Mr. Schneider also handles a wide variety of redevelopment matters as well as corporate and commercial litigation. In addition to handling major litigation before both the state and federal courts and the Office of Administrative Law, he has extensive experience before the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Appellate Division.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.