Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA - 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991)

Rule:

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides that a reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside a final rule promulgated under § 6(a) of TSCA if the court finds that the rule is not supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. 15 U.S.C.S. § 2618(c)(1)(B)(i). The substantial evidence standard affords a considerably more generous judicial review than the arbitrary or capricious test and imposes a considerable burden on the agency and limits its discretion in arriving at a factual predicate.

Facts:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almost all products. Petitioners claim that the EPA's rulemaking procedure was flawed and that the rule was not promulgated on the basis of substantial evidence. Certain petitioners and amici curiae contend that the EPA rule is invalid because it conflicts with international trade agreements and may have adverse economic effects on Canada and other foreign countries. 

Issue:

Was the adoption of the ban supported by substantial evidence as required by TSCA?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court vacated the rule, reversed, remanded, and ruled that under § 19(c)(1)(B)(ii) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2618(c)(1)(B)(ii), the rule was unlawfully promulgated where EPA’s restrictions on cross-examination precluded disclosure of disputed material facts, necessary to a fair determination. The court also ruled that 15 U.S.C.S. § 2605(a) required adoption of the least burdensome regulation to achieve a goal of minimum reasonable risk, that EPA failed to assess costs and benefits of the least to most burdensome alternatives, and that its calculations of benefits and costs were inaccurate and failed to factor the costs and risks of substitute products. Because of the many defects in methodology, the court held that adoption of the ban was not supported by substantial evidence as required by TSCA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2618(c)(1)(B)(i).