Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Challenge
EPA's Neurotoxicity Test Guidelines
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. EPA, 451 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D.D.C. 2006), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) motion to dismiss a suit for lack of standing. The plaintiffs claimed that the EPA's adoption of test protocols and guidelines for pesticides violated the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) rulemaking requirements.
Background
To comply with its regulatory responsibilities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and to determine whether a specific pesticide is safe to enter the marketplace, the EPA must pay particular attention to the health and safety of children and infants. Id. at 226. It must ensure, to a reasonable certainty, that no harm to children or infants will result from the aggregate exposure of pesticide chemical residue. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C)). To ensure an adequate margin of safety, chemical manufacturers can either supply the EPA with developmental neurotoxicity test (DNT) data in support of a particular pesticide application, or the agency will apply the statutory default tenfold margin of safety. Id.
The plaintiffs unsuccessfully petitioned the EPA to repeal the DNT guidelines alleging that the guidelines, which were used to monitor the margin of safety for infants and children, were no safer than the guidelines for adults and thus violated FFDCA. Id.
Arguments
First, the plaintiffs challenged the EPA's rejection of their petition requesting that the EPA repeal the DNT Guidelines. Id. at 227. They claimed that the rejection was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a). Id. Second, they alleged that the EPA violated the APA's procedural requirements by issuing final rules without first providing public notice or an opportunity for public comment. Id.
The EPA moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and made the four following arguments in support of its motion: "(1)the plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from bringing the current action; (2)the plaintiffs lack standing; (3)the plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for judicial review; and (4)this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' complaint." Id.
Analysis and Holdings
Before granting the EPA's motion to dismiss, the court reviewed the basic elements of party standing and reminded the parties that it was a plaintiff's burden to establish standing in order for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 228-29. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the DNT guidelines were nonbinding on the EPA and "the plaintiffs [did] not attack any specific tolerance decisions by the EPA made in reliance of DNT testing." Id. at 231. "That DNT testing data [would] wrongly indicate that certain pesticides [were] safe, and that the EPA [would] fail to impose sufficiently strict regulations . . . , which in turn [would] lead to the individual plaintiffs' and their unborn children's continued exposure to harmful pesticides" was an injury that was too attenuated for the court. Id. In addition, the court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injury would not be addressed by a favorable result. Id. at 231-32.
The case was decided on September 11, 2006.