Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency

Citations: 46 F.3d 1208; 310 U.S. App. D.C. 291; 40 ERC (BNA) 1382; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3310Docket: 93-1758

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; February 21, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ciba-Geigy Corporation filed a petition for review of a final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that established the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for the herbicide atrazine at 0.003 mg/l, based on an EPA Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.005 mg/kg/day. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, led by Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, dismissed the petition without prejudice and remanded the case to the EPA for reconsideration. This decision was prompted by the EPA's October 1, 1993 revision of the atrazine RfD to 0.035 mg/kg, which would result in a higher MCLG of 0.02 mg/l. The Safe Drinking Water Act mandates that the EPA establish national primary drinking water regulations, including MCLs and MCLGs, with MCLGs set to ensure no known adverse health effects occur. Ciba-Geigy’s petition was filed after the typical 45-day review period, relying on the new grounds arising from the revised RfD, which allowed for late filing under the statute.

On November 16, 1993, Ciba-Geigy submitted a petition to the EPA to reconsider and revise the maximum contaminant level (MCL) and maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for atrazine, as well as to stay their effectiveness due to a new reference dose (RfD). The EPA responded on October 17, 1994, denying the petition and characterizing the request for rulemaking as "premature." The agency expressed doubts that a revision would adequately address public health risks associated with atrazine and acknowledged the potential underestimation of risks and possible changes in its assessment methodology. Ciba-Geigy's current petition seeks review of the Final Rule, not the EPA's denial of the prior petition, prompting the agency to argue for dismissal due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for lack of ripeness. The court agrees with the dismissal but finds that remand is also suitable given the case's context.

The court references Oljato Chapter of the Navajo Tribe v. Train, where it interpreted section 307 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), comparable to section 1448(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), allowing petitions for review based on new grounds. The court emphasized the importance of presenting new information to the Administrator before judicial review to ensure informed decision-making and to create a comprehensive administrative record. This reasoning has been supported in subsequent cases, and while the court agrees with this procedural approach, it determines that a simple dismissal is not warranted in this instance.

The Oljato rule is based on ripeness rather than an administrative exhaustion requirement. The ripeness inquiry considers the practical relationship between courts and agencies, emphasizing the need for agencies to finalize policies before judicial review. It also weighs the court's desire to avoid unnecessary adjudication and the petitioner's interest in timely addressing allegedly unlawful agency actions. The court suggests that while prudential aspects of the ripeness doctrine may discourage immediate decisions, both judicial efficiency and the petitioner's interests support remanding the case instead of outright dismissal. Ciba-Geigy, unlike petitioners in prior cases, has presented its issue to the EPA and received an unfavorable response, which makes the petition ripe for review. However, Ciba-Geigy did not file a petition for review of the EPA's denial of its reconsideration petition, leading to an incomplete record. Consequently, the court dismisses Ciba-Geigy's petition without prejudice and remands the case for the development of a reviewable record, along with a reassessment of the atrazine Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) due to new reference dose (RfD) data. Additionally, it notes that under section 307 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia within 30 days of promulgation, reaffirming that courts cannot impose exhaustion of administrative remedies unless explicitly required by law.