922 F.3d 446
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- TSCA requires EPA to publish a public Inventory of chemicals manufactured/processed in the U.S., with confidential and nonconfidential portions; the 2016 amendments required EPA to update the Inventory and to require substantiation for confidentiality claims.
- The EPA promulgated the Inventory Rule (82 Fed. Reg. 37,520 (Aug. 11, 2017)) implementing retrospective/prospective reporting (Form A/B) and procedures for maintaining confidentiality claims. ~86,000 chemicals are listed; ~18,000 confidential.
- TSCA requires claimants to assert four criteria (including that identity is not readily discoverable through reverse engineering) and to substantiate confidentiality claims. The proposed rule included reverse-engineering substantiation questions; the final rule omitted them.
- Environmental Defense Fund challenged five aspects of the Inventory Rule: removal of reverse-engineering substantiation questions; broadened ability to "maintain" confidentiality; failure to incorporate certain statutory procedural requirements verbatim; failure to implement unique identifiers; and exempting export-only chemicals from notification. Industry intervened supporting EPA.
- The D.C. Circuit found Environmental Defense had informational standing and granted the petition in part: it held EPA’s elimination of reverse-engineering substantiation questions was arbitrary and capricious and remanded limitedly without vacatur; it denied the remaining challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA unlawfully omitted substantiation questions about reverse engineering (15 U.S.C. §2613(c)(1)(B)(iv)) | EDF: EPA must require substantiation that identities are not readily discoverable by reverse engineering; omission allows unlawful secrecy. | EPA: Questions unnecessary or duplicative; other questions capture required info; omission was for succinctness. | Court: EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by eliminating reverse-engineering substantiation; remand without vacatur. |
| Whether only original claimants (or successors) may "maintain" existing confidentiality claims | EDF: Only original claimants or successors-in-interest may maintain confidentiality; otherwise statute misapplied. | EPA: Statute permits any manufacturer/processor of a listed confidential chemical to seek to maintain confidentiality; EPA’s interpretation is permissible. | Court: Upheld EPA’s broader interpretation as reasonable under Chevron. |
| Whether Inventory Rule unlawfully failed to incorporate TSCA’s procedural requirements (e.g., 90-day review, 30-day appeal, public disclosure obligations) | EDF: Rule should replicate statutory procedural deadlines and disclosure rules; omission undermines transparency. | EPA: Statute governs by its own force; rule need not duplicate every statutory provision; no conflict or frustration of statute. | Court: Rejected EDF; no facial contradiction and EPA may implement statutory obligations separately. |
| Whether EPA unlawfully failed to implement unique identifier system in the Inventory Rule (15 U.S.C. §2613(g)(4)) | EDF: Unique identifiers must be implemented in this rulemaking; EPA ignored statutory command and comments. | EPA: Not required to implement every statutory obligation in a single rulemaking; no deadline; EPA has solicited comments and later actions. | Court: Rejected EDF; EPA permissibly deferred unique-identifier implementation and adequately addressed comment scope. |
| Whether EPA unreasonably excluded export-only chemicals from retrospective notification requirement | EDF: Section 2611’s carve-out means §2607 must apply to export-only chemicals; exports should count as nonexempt commercial purpose. | EPA: Statute silent on scope; reasonable to exempt export-only chemicals from retrospective reporting consistent with other provisions and notice. | Court: Upheld EPA’s exclusion as a reasonable interpretation under Chevron and adequately noticed in rulemaking. |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (standing article III requirement)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (informational standing and injury from withheld disclosure)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (informational standing precedent)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious review principles)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference to permissible statutory interpretations)
- Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (procedural-step standing principles)
- Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 824 F.3d 1033 (informational standing standard)
- Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (agency explanation must not be inaccurate or unreasonable)
- United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (agencies need not address all obligations in one rulemaking)