Opinion ID: 546060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the framework of section 21

Text: 16 When it comes to statutory interpretation, it is a familiar canon ... that the starting point ... is the language of the statute itself, and absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. 71 If, however, the language leaves the meaning of the statute unclear, the court may enlist the aid of pertinent legislative history and other sources of legislative intent in an effort to resolve the ambiguity. 72 These twin guidelines shape our approach to the problem whether appellants may utilize the APA as a basis for their attack on EPA's disposition of their petition. 17 Section 21(a) authorizes [a]ny person to petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under Sections 4, 73 6 74 or 8, 75 or an order under Sections 5(e) 76 or 6(b)(2) 77 of the Act. 78 Procedures for treatment of such a petition are meticulously described. Following its presentation, 79 EPA may convene a public hearing, conduct an investigation or look elsewhere for assistance in determining whether the petition should be granted. 80 Within 90 days after filing of the petition, EPA must either grant or deny it. 81 If EPA grants the petition, it must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding in accordance with Sections 4, 5, 6 or 8 of the Act. 82 If EPA denies the petition, it must publish its reasons in the Federal Register. 83 18 Upon denial of a petition seeking initiation of a rule, or failure to act upon such a petition in a timely manner, the petitioner may institute suit in a federal district court for an order compelling compliance with the request. 84 The petitioner must be provided an opportunity to have such petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding, 85 and the disposition appropriate is set forth in careful detail: 19 If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that-- 20 (i) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section ... or an order under section [5(e) ] ...-- 21 (I) information available to [EPA] is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance to be subject to such rule or order; and 22 (II) in the absence of such information, the substance may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, or the substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities and it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to it; or 23 (ii) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section or ... or an order under section [6(b)(2) ], ... there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule or order is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. 86 24 the court shall order [EPA] to initiate the action requested by the petitioner. If the court finds that the extent of the risk to health or the environment alleged by the petitioner is less than the extent of risks to health or the environment with respect to which [EPA] is taking action under this [Act] and there are insufficient resources available to [EPA] to take the action requested by the petitioner, the court may permit [EPA] to defer initiating the action requested by the petitioner until such time as the court prescribes. 87 25 Section 21 thus is a comprehensive as well as an unusual remedy open to petitioners denied promulgation of new rules. 26 As we have seen, Section 21 permits a petitioner to ask EPA not only for inauguration of a new rule or order, but also for amendment or repeal of a rule or order already in place. 88 But action or inaction on petitions for amendment or repeal of a rule, unlike those for initiation of a rule, are not accorded the privilege of de novo judicial review. The statutory language strongly suggests that, and the legislative history makes it plain and explains why Section 21 is written that way. The Senate Report, speaking of a petition for issuance of a new rule, states the reason: 27 In a judicial review of [EPA's] denial of a citizen's petition or failure to act, there would be no record upon which the review could be based, and therefore a de novo procedure is essential to provide the opportunity to develop such a record. 89 28 The Conference Reports further inform us that Section 21 29 provides for different judicial review of the [agency] denial of a petition, depending upon whether such petition seeks the issuance of a rule or order or the amendment or repeal of an existing rule or order.... [It] affords greater rights to a person petitioning for the issuance of a rule or order because in such a situation the [agency] will not previously have addressed the issue by rule or order. 90 30 Less hospitable treatment of petitions to amend or repeal is warranted, then, since the [agency] already will have addressed the general subject matter in an existing rule or order and [its] determination will have been subject to review under section 19 of th[e] Act. 91 This difference in treatment is significant; the Conference Reports make it known that 31 the conferees do not intend that [EPA] be subjected to constant petitions challenging rules or orders for which adequate judicial review is provided under section 19. Therefore, if [EPA] denies a petition to amend or repeal an action under section 4, 5(e), 6, or 8, [Section 21] permits review of such denial only under the Administrative Procedure Act. 92 32 Section 19, to which the Conference Committee referred, provides for direct review in a federal court of appeals of rules promulgat[ed] under designated provisions of the Act. 93 For purposes of the review, some specifications of the APA, including standard of review, are modified, 94 and as modified they govern the review process. 95 Section 19 contains a saving clause similar to the one incorporated into Section 21. 96 Section 19, of course, applies only when EPA has actually established a rule, and not where, as here, it has refused to formulate a new rule. 97 33 Emerging from this analysis are two standards of the Act's scheme of judicial review of EPA action on petitions for rulemaking, and complete silence of the statutory text with respect to the third. Denials of petitions seeking initiation of new rules may be reviewed in district courts in Section 21 proceedings and the review may be de novo. Refusals to amend or repeal existing rules can be reviewed in courts of appeals in modified APA proceedings. But the Act does not expressly address the question of APA review of denials of new-rule petitions, and the search for the answer must continue.