Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. Wheeler
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-00871
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. Wheeler, Judge Chen denied EPA’s dismissal motion but dismissed plaintiffs’ TSCA de novo-review claim with prejudice.
The ruling affected the nonprofit plaintiffs and the Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew Wheeler. The plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claim remained before the court, while their Toxic Substances Control Act claim seeking de novo review was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and other nonprofit organizations challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of their petition seeking stricter asbestos reporting requirements. They brought claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court decided that the petition sought changes to an existing reporting rule, not the creation of a new rule. It therefore held that the plaintiffs’ claim for a fresh review under the Toxic Substances Control Act could not proceed, but that their Administrative Procedure Act claim could be reviewed under the usual agency-review standard. The court denied the EPA’s motion to dismiss the Administrative Procedure Act claim and dismissed the Toxic Substances Control Act claim with prejudice.
Judge Edward Chen issued the order on November 15, 2019. The order disposed of the motion to dismiss while leaving the Administrative Procedure Act claim before the court.
The detailed version
- Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. Wheeler · No. 3:19-cv-00871
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs are nonprofit public-health and environmental organizations that promote awareness of asbestos risks. They challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of a petition asking the agency to strengthen asbestos reporting requirements under the Chemical Data Reporting rule. The requested changes included eliminating certain exemptions, lowering the reporting threshold, requiring reports from processors, requiring reports for an earlier reporting cycle, and addressing confidential-business-information treatment.
The plaintiffs sued under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act and under the Administrative Procedure Act. The EPA moved to dismiss the Administrative Procedure Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The parties also disputed whether the plaintiffs’ petition sought a new rule or amendments to an existing rule.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the petition sought amendments to the existing Chemical Data Reporting rule. The petition specifically requested changes to existing regulatory provisions, including the reporting threshold and exemptions. Because the petition sought amendments rather than the issuance of a new rule, the court held that the special de novo review provided for new-rule petitions did not apply.
The court concluded that review under the Administrative Procedure Act was appropriate. Under that statute, the court explained, an agency action may be set aside if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The court also stated that an administrative record could be assembled, including the EPA’s response and materials from the asbestos risk-evaluation process.
Disposition
The court denied the EPA’s motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claim was properly before the court because the petition sought amendments to an existing rule. For the same reasons, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ Section 21 claim seeking de novo review. The order disposed of Docket No. 16.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.