As reported in our March 31, 2025, blog item, on March 21, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in a case challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) May 3, 2024, final rule amending the procedural framework rule for conducting risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) v. EPA, Consolidated Case No. 24-1151. On April 30, 2025, the court issued an order denying EPA’s motion for voluntary remand and granting EPA’s motion to hold the case in abeyance. In its order, the court states that “serious question arose regarding the propriety of the court retaining jurisdiction over this case and issuing any judgment on the present record.” The court notes that as matters now stand:

• EPA has advised the court that it does not intend to defend the 2024 rule. As reported in our March 14, 2025, memorandum, EPA intends to initiate further rulemaking to reexamine multiple aspects of the 2024 rule. During oral argument, EPA stated that it prefers the case be held in abeyance pending reconsideration.
• Industry Petitioners (Texas Chemistry Council, American Chemistry Council, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and American Petroleum Institute) and Olin Corporation (as intervenor) advised the court during oral argument that they do not seek a judgment on the merits and that the parties lack adversity with respect to the 2024 rule. They also prefer that the case be held in abeyance.
• Alaska Community Action on Toxics and Sierra Club, appearing as intervenors in support of EPA’s 2024 rule, asked the court to uphold the rule.
• The court states that it “ha[s] substantial doubts about whether Labor Petitioners — United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Worksafe, Inc. — have demonstrated Article III standing in accordance with our precedent and D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(7).”

The court granted EPA’s motion to hold the case in abeyance and directed the parties to file status reports by July 29, 2025, and at 90-day intervals thereafter. The court denied EPA’s motion for voluntary remand. Senior Circuit Judge Edwards dissented from the grant of abeyance, stating that the case “is ready for hearing and disposition by this court and any further delay is unjustified.” According to Edwards, “[i]t is quite extraordinary that nine years after the Lautenberg Amendments, questions remain as to the agency’s obligations under the statute, and no clear framework has emerged for how the agency is to assess for risk.”