Second Circuit – Environmental Protection Agency: Labor Council v. EPA

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Environmental Protection Agency

Review of Final Rule – Substantial evidence standard

Labor Council v. EPA

19-1042L

Judges Leval, Cabranes, and Raggi

Background: The petitioner challenged a Final Rule published by the EPA restricting access by consumers to methylene chloride, a dangerous chemical used in paint removal products. The petitioner argues that the rules’ method of restricting consumer use is arbitrary and capricious because of its incidental impact on commercial uses of methylene chloride. The petitioner also argues that the EPA failed to adequately consider the costs of the proposed rule. A group of environmental petitioners also challenge the rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Ruling: The Second Circuit denied review. The court held that the Final Rule is supported by substantial evidence. The ban is a reasonable means to achieve its required goal of ensuring that the risks posed by consumer uses of methylene chloride were no longer presented.The Second Circuit also held that the environmental petitioners’ challenge is prudentially unripe for review.

Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, EarthJustice, and Thomas Zimpleman, Natural Resources Defense Council, Robert M. Sussman, of Sussman & Associates, and W. Caffey Norman, of Squire Patton Boggs, for the petitioners; Daniel Depasquale and Bethany Fisher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for the respondents.