Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a challenge by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and others against a Final Test Rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4, requiring testing of 2-ethylhexanoic acid (EHA). Key legal issues include the interpretation of 'unreasonable risk,' evidence requirements for exposure, and the standard for judicial review. The EPA's rule mandates testing based on substantial suspicion of health risks, allowing inferences about exposure and toxicity without direct evidence. Despite industry objections and claims of insufficient exposure evidence, the court affirms the EPA's approach, emphasizing the substantial evidence standard for judicial review. The rule remains justiciable as it imposes ongoing obligations, and the court rejects mootness arguments. The EPA's standards for issuing test rules align with legislative intent, supporting precautionary measures without requiring a more-probable-than-not certainty. The ruling denies the petition for review, affirming the EPA's authority to mandate testing under TSCA based on reasonable risk concerns.
Legal Issues Addressed
Evidence Requirements for Exposure under TSCAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The EPA may rely on circumstantial evidence to infer exposure, even if industry evidence suggests otherwise, as long as there is a substantial basis for concern.
Reasoning: The court affirms that the EPA can infer exposure levels from manufacturing and usage contexts and is only required to counter industry evidence if it sufficiently undermines the EPA's findings.
Interpretation of 'Unreasonable Risk' under TSCA Section 4subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The EPA can issue a test rule based on a substantial suspicion of health risk, not requiring a more-probable-than-not standard, allowing action at a lower certainty threshold.
Reasoning: The court upholds the EPA's interpretation that it can issue a test rule based on a more-than-theoretical suspicion of 'unreasonable risk of injury to health' from a chemical.
Judicial Review Standard under TSCAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court uses the 'substantial evidence' standard to review the EPA's Final Test Rule, which is more rigorous than the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
Reasoning: Judicial review of the Final Test Rule... will not apply the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standard but will instead assess whether the rule is backed by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record.
Justiciability and Mootness in Federal Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petition remains justiciable despite mootness claims because the rule imposes ongoing obligations, maintaining a concrete interest for the petitioners.
Reasoning: The court finds the case justiciable because the rule still imposes concrete obligations on companies dealing with EHA.
Testing Requirements and Industry Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The EPA must justify testing based on significant evidence of risk, but it need not rebut industry evidence with direct evidence, relying on reasonable inferences.
Reasoning: EPA's reliance on inferences for issuing a section 4 test rule is deemed reasonable, provided that all evidence, including industry evidence, suggests a more-than-theoretical probability of exposure.