Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05188/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05188-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carol M. Browner
Appellee
Environmental Protection Agency
Appellee
Troy Corporation
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

-

Filed December 2, 1997

No. 96-5188

TROY CORPORATION,

APPELLANT

v.

CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

APPELLEES

Consolidated with

Nos. 96-5203 and 96-5204

Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

This matter came on to be heard and was heard on Troy 

Corporation's petition claiming that the court had erred in 

affirming the judgment of the district court upholding the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") listing of 3-

IODO-2-PROPYNYL BUTYL CARBAMATE. Upon receivUSCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ing the response of the EPA to the petition and reviewing all 

things and matters submitted by the parties in conjunction 

with the issues determined herein, the petition for rehearing 

is not well taken and therefore for the reasons more fully set 

forth in the supplemental opinion of even date herewith, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the petition of Troy Corporation for partial rehearing is hereby 

denied.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: 

Deputy Clerk 

USCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed December 2, 1997

No. 96-5188

TROY CORPORATION,

APPELLANT

v.

CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

APPELLEES

-

Consolidated with

Nos. 96-5203 and 96-5204

-

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 95cv00980) 

(No. 95cv01673) 

(No. 95cv01910)

-

On Appellant Troy Corporation's Petition for Rehearing

-

Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: On August 1, 1997, we issued an opinion 

herein upholding the district court's grant of summary judgUSCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ment in favor of the Administrator of the EPA in an action 

brought by appellant Troy Corporation ("Troy") and others to 

invalidate a rulemaking which had culminated in the addition 

of 286 chemicals to the toxic release inventory under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Rights to Know Act of 

1986 ("EPCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. In our decision, 

we discovered no error affecting the EPA's handling of the 

chemicals in general, but did reverse and remand for further 

proceedings as to two specific chemicals, "DMP" and 

"BRONOPOL." Troy now seeks rehearing as to another 

specific chemical, 3-IODO-2-PROPYNYL BUTYL CARBAMATE ("IPBC"), arguing that the EPA's administrative record did not support its decision to list the chemical, and that 

the EPA's listing decision was inconsistent with its analysis of 

another chemical, phosphoric acid. We considered Troy's 

arguments of sufficient seriousness to warrant requiring a 

response from the EPA. Upon review of the response and of 

all things and matters already in the record, we have determined that the district court properly upheld the EPA's 

decision to list IPBC.

Briefly put, without rehashing our prior decision or those of 

the district court and the agency, the first question before us 

concerns the adequacy of the record to support the EPA's 

decision to list IPBC under the applicable statutory and 

regulatory criteria. The governing statute contemplates the 

addition of a chemical to the inventory when the administrator determines that "there is sufficient evidence to establish 

... [t]he chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause in humans ... serious or irreversible ... 

chronic health effects." 42 U.S.C. § 11023(d)(2)(B)(ii)(IV). 

In our original opinion, we rejected not only a series of 

general objections to the EPA's listing process, but also some 

chemical-specific objections to the listing of IPBC. Troy now 

argues that we failed to consider the EPA's allegedly inadequate record on the question of irreversibility of effects 

caused by IPBC on the internal tissues of rats in the studies 

upon which the EPA based its listing decision. The EPA has 

come forward with some response directed toward the quesUSCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tion of irreversibility, but more significantly has demonstrated that the record supports its listing decision on the alternative criterion of "serious[ness]." Originally, we opined that 

the seriousness of the effects of IPBC identified by the EPA 

in the record was self-evident. While it would, of course, 

have been possible for us to have gone through each of the 

286 listed chemicals and recited the specific basis for the 

EPA's determination of seriousness, it would have been neither necessary nor appropriate under the relevant standards 

of review.1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts 

uphold the administrative decisions of agencies unless the 

agency has acted in a fashion that is "arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 

or the agency's finding is "unsupported by substantial evidence...." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) & (E). The agency's decision in the present case passes this deferential review.

In the original proceedings, and more specifically in its 

response to the present petition, the EPA points to its record 

conclusion that the animal studies demonstrated "significant 

increases in the incidence in nonneoplastic pathology of the 

stomach." The studies provided in the administrative record 

support this conclusion. See United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Review of Toxicology Data, reprinted at 

Joint Appendix p. 3371. Troy asserts that the type of lesion 

described in the studies is not within the usual meaning of the 

word "serious" unless the lesion is irreversible. It further 

asserts, with some justification, that there is no evidence of 

irreversibility. However, in reviewing the EPA's construction of a statutory term, we apply the Chevron standard and 

uphold the agency's construction of a statute entrusted to its 

administration unless its interpretation is contrary to the 

plain meaning of Congress or unreasonable. Chevron U.S.A. 

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 

(1984). We cannot say that the agency's inclusion of the 

described condition within the compass of the term "serious" 

__________

1

In addition, it would have been less than judicially efficient.

USCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fails either part of that deferential test. That word of degree 

bespeaks on its face the sort of ambiguity we expect agencies 

to resolve under Chevron.

Troy further argues that the EPA's decision to list IPBC, 

being based in part on its determination that the "incidence of 

lesions was dose dependent ... [and] increased with duration 

of treatment," was inconsistent with the agency's decision not 

to list phosphoric acid under EPCRA. Troy quotes the 

EPA's determination that the "extent of damage is generally 

determined by acid concentration [i.e., dose] and duration of 

contact." (Bracketed language added by Troy.) Troy contends that this is the same finding as that made with respect 

to IPBC. Although there is some question as to whether 

Troy even raised this objection with sufficient specificity 

before the issuance of the original opinion to have it considered by us on rehearing, we would reject it in any event.

As the EPA notes in its response to the petition for 

rehearing, Troy's objection does not establish a general similarity between the physical-chemical properties of mineral 

acids, such as phosphoric acid, and IPBC. Specifically, Troy 

confuses "concentration" with "dose," thereby misstating the 

EPA's finding with respect to phosphoric acid. As the EPA 

reminds us, the inherent toxicity of mineral acids changes 

dramatically with concentration, such that an acid which has 

adverse human health effects at high concentrations may 

nevertheless not be toxic at concentration levels reasonably 

expected to exist in the environment. This is so because it is 

the acidity of the solution, not the presence of phosphoric 

acid, that causes toxic effects. Thus, the same dose of 

phosphoric acid could be delivered in different concentrations 

and result in different effects. Therefore, the insertion of 

"[i.e., dose]" in the appellant's rendering of the EPA's decision changes the determination with reference to phosphoric 

acid in a way that suggests a superficial appearance of 

inconsistency with the listing of IPBC. There is not in fact 

any inconsistency therewith, as IPBC is not an acid, and its 

toxicity depends on "dose," not concentration.

USCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Finally, we would note that Troy's entire approach to the 

petition for rehearing assumes that the court's opinion must 

respond specifically to every argument made by every appellant. This, of course, is not the case, especially with regard 

to review of administrative actions like the present one in 

which multiple groups of appellants have produced a plethora 

of arguments of such a detailed and fact-specific nature as to 

warrant no creation of precedent. For the reasons set forth 

above, we deny the petition for partial rehearing.

USCA Case #96-5188 Document #312666 Filed: 12/02/1997 Page 7 of 7