Opinion ID: 365968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: interaction with toxic substances control act.

Text: 41 Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629 (1976), during the pendency of EPA's proceedings on the proposed PCBs effluent standards. TSCA requires notice of intent to manufacture, and pre-manufacture testing of chemical substances, and confers authority on EPA to regulate the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such substances. In addition to the provisions applicable to chemical substances in general, TSCA includes a specific provision concerned solely with polychlorinated biphenyls, section 6(e), 15 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (1976). Section 6(e) provides for a gradual phasing out of PCBs use over a two and one-half year period with limited provision for exemptions. 54 42 Industry petitioners contend that this section of TSCA was intended to preempt EPA's authority under the 1972 Act. They assert that EPA's ban on discharges of PCBs into waterways makes manufacture and processing of PCBs impossible and that TSCA's phase-out timetable and exemption authority show that Congress did not intend PCBs to be completely and immediately phased out. Therefore, the argument goes, EPA should not achieve this result by the use of its authority under another regulatory provision, the toxics section of the 1972 Act. EPA responds that Congress did not intend section 6(e) to deprive it of its authority under the 1972 Act. 55 43 We agree with EPA. Strictly speaking, the claim made by industry petitioners is one of repeal by implication, the overriding of one statute by a later enactment Sub silentio, rather than a claim of preemption. It is, of course, a cardinal principle of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp.,425 U.S. 164, 168-69, 96 S.Ct. 1319, 1323, 47 L.Ed.2d 653 (1976) (collecting cases). Implied repeals occur if two Acts are In irreconcilable conflict. Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 172-73 n.10, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2595, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976) (emphasis added). When confronted with statutes that are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 133-34, 95 S.Ct. 335, 353, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) (quoting Morton v. Mancari,417 U.S. 535, 551, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974)). 44 Not only is there no clearly expressed congressional intention that TSCA repeal EPA's prior regulatory authority, and no irreconcilable conflict between TSCA and the 1972 Act, but, in fact, Congress carefully and explicitly harmonized TSCA with prior enactments. Section 9(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2608(b) (1976) (emphasis added), provides, in part: 45 If the Administrator determines that a risk to health or the environment associated with a chemical substance or mixture Could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent By actions taken under the authorities contained in . . . Other Federal laws, the Administrator shall use such authorities to protect against such risk unless the Administrator determines, in the Administrator's discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such risk by actions taken under this chapter. This subsection shall not be construed to relieve the Administrator of any requirement imposed on the Administrator by such other Federal laws. 46 Section 9(b) leaves EPA the choice of regulating toxic substances under TSCA, other statutes (such as the 1972 Act), or both. Throughout debate over passage of TSCA, representatives of the chemical industry urged that it would be unnecessarily duplicative of existing authority, and that EPA should not be given a choice among multiple regulatory authorities. 56 Congress rejected those arguments, which petitioners, in effect, now seek to resurrect. Congress determined that a choice among regulatory authorities was necessary so that EPA could use the most effective means available to combat unknown and potentially extreme risks from toxic substances, and that judicial review of EPA's choice was inappropriate. 57 Our interpretation of section 9(b) is reinforced by section 6(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(5) (1976), which states: (t)his subsection (6(e) (governing PCBs)) does not limit the authority of the Administrator, under any other provision of this chapter or any other Federal law, to take action respecting any polychlorinated biphenyl. 47 Petitioners contend it is incongruous that EPA can take action concerning PCBs under section 307 that they contend, Congress did not subsequently authorize under TSCA. 58 However, the provision of multiple regulatory authorities is far from unknown. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently noted, concerning civil rights legislation, that legislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). Legislative enactments concerning dangerous substances evince a similar intent. In EDF v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 381, 428 F.2d 1083 (1970), this court held that Congress had not intended, by passage of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, to limit authority to regulate pesticide residues in food under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Id. 138 U.S.App.D.C. 384-86, 428 F.2d at 1086-88. Similarly, in Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966), the court held that Congress had not intended by passage of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, to limit authority to regulate drug residues in poultry under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, we find no merit in the argument that TSCA was intended to constrain EPA's authority under the 1972 Act. 48