Opinion ID: 513179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Summary of Statutory Interpretation

Text: 56 We reject all three of CMA's challenges to EPA's statutory construction of section 4. Summarizing the foregoing discussion, we uphold EPA's conclusion that it is empowered to issue a test rule where the evidence pointing to the presence of an unreasonable risk of injury to health is substantial enough to indicate that the decision to issue a test rule is based on more than theory, speculation and conjecture. The Agency must find that there is a more-than-theoretical basis for concluding that some amount of exposure takes place and that toxicity at that level of exposure suffices to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health. Inferences drawn from the circumstances under which a substance is manufactured and used can suffice to establish the existence and amount of exposure. Industry-supplied evidence attacking those inferences must be rebutted by EPA only if the industry evidence renders the probability of exposure at a level sufficient to present an unreasonable risk no more than theoretical and speculative. So long as there is a more-than-theoretical probability that the toxic substance in rare or single doses presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health, the statutory standard is met whatever the infrequency of exposure. 57 We turn now to consider the sufficiency of the evidence in this record to meet these statutory standards.