EPA, Intervenors File Supplemental Briefs in Case Challenging EPA’s Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules
Posted on July 15, 2019 by Lynn L. Bergeson
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On June 28, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed its response to the non-governmental organizations’ (NGO) supplemental brief in a case challenging EPA’s prioritization and risk evaluation rules. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, No. 17-72260. According to EPA, petitioners “have plausibly alleged standing to challenge only the definitional interpretation of ‘conditions of use’ and the two provisions still subject to EPA’s motion for voluntary remand.” As to the remainder of petitioners’ claims, EPA maintains that their allegations “are based on hypotheticals and other non-final agency actions currently being considered by the agency.” EPA argues that the court should dismiss petitioners’ challenges to: (1) EPA’s preamble statements about the potential scope of future risk evaluations; (2) EPA’s regulatory provisions leaving the door open to issue early risk determinations; and (3) the remaining information-gathering provisions still at issue. EPA states that if it “ever takes final agency actions based on the decisions Petitioners hypothesize, those would be the proper actions for Petitioners’ challenges.”
A coalition of industry associations filed a supplemental brief in support of EPA on June 28, 2019. The coalition states: “Although it is theoretically possible that EPA could exclude a use of a particular chemical that could affect the risk evaluation in a way that could cause the agency not to regulate some use of a chemical that could injure Petitioners’ members, that does not create a justiciable controversy now, before the Rules have been applied.” (Emphasis in original.) The coalition asks the court to dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
As reported in our June 26, 2019, blog item, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 16, 2019, and afterward ordered petitioners to file a supplemental brief addressing why they should be allowed to bring a lawsuit against EPA.