Institute for Fisheries Resources v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ use of the chemical 6PPD in car and truck tires resulted in road runoff containing 6PPD-quinone, which caused a taking of protected salmonid fish species in West Coast populations under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The court had previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The order addressed defendants’ request for a stay under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. That doctrine allows a court, in limited circumstances, to pause a case when an administrative agency should initially decide an issue within the agency’s regulatory authority.

The request for a stay

Defendants argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s expertise was needed because the agency had granted a petition asking it to begin rulemaking under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The requested rule would regulate the manufacture, processing, use, and distribution of 6PPD in and for tires. The agency said it would begin an appropriate rulemaking proceeding but could not commit to a specific schedule or outcome.

Defendants maintained that the petition raised the same issues as the lawsuit. The court acknowledged some factual overlap but concluded that the two statutes serve different purposes. The Toxic Substances Control Act addresses chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, while the Endangered Species Act claim asks whether defendants’ conduct caused a taking of protected fish.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that Congress did not assign the Environmental Protection Agency authority to decide whether defendants violated Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The agency’s decision under the Toxic Substances Control Act therefore would not resolve the central issue in the lawsuit.

The court also noted that the case would require independent evidence concerning road runoff, discharge into West Coast aquatic environments, salmonid biology, causation, and possible mitigation measures. The agency’s rulemaking would not decide those questions. The court further stated that primary jurisdiction is not intended to obtain agency advice whenever an issue could conceivably fall within an agency’s area of expertise.

Because the controlling legal issue would remain whether defendants violated Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, the court concluded that delaying the case while the agency proceeded would make little sense. The court said defendants could ask it to reconsider a stay if the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking in fall 2024 that provided good cause for another review.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ request for a stay on primary jurisdiction grounds. The order did not decide whether defendants violated the Endangered Species Act. The case was not stayed based on the agency’s pending Toxic Substances Control Act proceedings.