Opinion ID: 499505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: judicial review of epa subpoena

Text: 6 An EPA subpoena is not self-enforcing. A recipient of an EPA subpoena may refrain from complying with it, without penalty, until directed otherwise by a federal court order. See SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien Corp., 467 U.S. 735, 741, 104 S.Ct. 2720, 2724-25, 81 L.Ed.2d 615 (1984). The EPA Administrator is authorized to petition a federal district court to order compliance. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2610(c). 7 In considering the subpoena in this case, the district court correctly articulated and applied the Ninth Circuit standard of judicial scrutiny. In EEOC v. Children's Hospital Medical Center of Northern Nevada, 719 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir.1983), an en banc panel of this court announced the following test to determine when a court should enforce administrative investigative subpoenas: 8 The scope of the judicial inquiry in an EEOC or any other agency subpoena enforcement proceeding is quite narrow. The critical questions are: (1) whether Congress has granted the authority to investigate; (2) whether procedural requirements have been followed; and (3) whether the evidence is relevant and material to the investigation. 9 Id. at 1428 (citing Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 508-09, 63 S.Ct. 339, 342-43, 87 L.Ed. 424 (1943)). If the agency demonstrates the existence of these factors, the court should enforce the subpoena unless the party subpoenaed proves the inquiry is unreasonably overbroad or unduly burdensome. Id. (citing Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 217, 66 S.Ct. 494, 509-10, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946)). 10 Each prong of the Children's Hospital test is met in this case. Although the EPA has no power to subpoena sworn testimony under the CWA, it does under the TSCA. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2610(c). Alyeska concedes that the EPA has regulatory jurisdiction to investigate its BWT plant under TSCA. [Blue at 40]. The first requirement is thus met. The district court also specifically found that procedural requisites to issuing a subpoena have been satisfied. [Memo at 13-14]. Alyeska does not contest this point on appeal. 11 Finally, the district court considered whether specific requests for documents in the subpoena are relevant to an investigation under the TSCA. [Memo at 14-17]. Alyeska argued below, as it does on appeal, that requests seeking information about any chemical substance or mixture, including oil spills, are outside the scope of a TSCA investigation, since that Act only regulates PCBs and imminently hazardous chemicals. The term imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture is not limited to any particular list of chemicals. The term imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture is defined to mean a substance or mixture that presents an unreasonable risk of serious or widespread injury to health or the environment which is likely to result before the EPA has a chance to promulgate a final rule under TSCA 2606(f), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2606(f)(1982). Although several sections of the TSCA specifically address PCBs, the Act is designed to cover the regulation of all chemical substances. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 636 F.2d 1267, 1271 (D.C.Cir.1980). The district court thus correctly sustained the EPA's argument that the documents requested are relevant to a TSCA investigation.