United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. _________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________________________________________ IN RE A COMMUNITY VOICE, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS, HEALTHY HOMES COLLABORATIVE, NEW JERSEY CITIZEN ACTION, NEW YORK CITY COALITION TO END LEAD POISONING SIERRA CLUB, UNITED PARENTS AGAINST LEAD NATIONAL, and WE ACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS __________________________________________________________________ HANNAH CHANG EVE C. GARTNER Earthjustice 48 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 845-7376 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED BY FRAP 26.1 Petitioners A Community Voice, California Communities Against Toxics, Healthy Homes Collaborative, New Jersey Citizen Action, New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, Sierra Club, United Parents Against Lead National, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice have no parent, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued shares or debt securities to the public. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of August, 2016. s/ Hannah Chang HANNAH CHANG EVE C. GARTNER Earthjustice 48 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-845-7376 Fax: 212-918-1556 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 THE RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 2 THE ISSUE PRESENTED ........................................................................................ 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 I. THE DANGER POSED BY LEAD PAINT AND DUST ................... 3 II. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PRIORITY OF ELIMINATING CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING ..................................................... 6 III. EPA’S DUST-LEAD HAZARD STANDARDS AND DEFINITION OF LEAD-BASED PAINT ................................................................... 8 A. The Dust-Lead Hazard Standards ............................................... 8 1. The Significance of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards ..... 9 2. The Inadequacy of the Existing Dust-Lead Hazard Standards ......................................................................... 12 B. EPA’s Definition of Lead-Based Paint ..................................... 13 1. The Inappropriateness of EPA’s Definition of Lead- Based Paint ..................................................................... 14 2. The Implications of EPA’s Definition of Lead-Based Paint ................................................................................ 16 IV. PETITIONERS’ 2009 RULEMAKING PETITION AND EPA’S DELAY IN PROMULGATING A RULE .......................................... 19 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 23 i STANDING ............................................................................................................. 24 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 25 I. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS WARRANTED TO COMPEL EPA TO PROCEED WITH AND CONCLUDE THE RULEMAKING IT INITIATED ......................................................................................... 25 A. EPA’s Seven-Year Delay in Concluding the Rulemaking It Agreed to Undertake in Response to the 2009 Petition Is Excessive and Violates the Rule of Reason .............................. 27 B. Congress Has Specified the Need to Expeditiously Eliminate Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing ..................................... 28 C. The Health and Welfare of the Hundreds of Thousands of Children Exposed to Lead in Their Homes Support a Finding of Unreasonable Delay .................................................................. 31 D. No Higher, Competing Priorities Justify EPA’s Seven-Year Delay ......................................................................................... 33 E. EPA’s Delay Prejudices Already Overburdened Environmental Justice Communities and Prevents Petitioners from Pursuing Administrative and Judicial Remedies ..................................... 35 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 37 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 750 F.2d 81 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 28 In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 27 In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 35 Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 29 Brower v. Evans, 257 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 27 In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 25 In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 27 Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .......................................................... 26, 29, 31, 34 Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 25, 27 In re Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 958 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 28 In re People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran, 680 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 36 Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .............................................................. 28, 31, 32 iii Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626 (D.C.Cir.1987) .............................................................................. 33 Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ...................................................................... 29, 33 Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .............................................................. 2, 25, 29, 35 Statutes 5 U.S.C. § 555 ................................................................................................ 2, 23, 26 5 U.S.C. § 702 ............................................................................................................ 2 5 U.S.C. § 706 ...................................................................................................... 2, 23 15 U.S.C. § 2601 ...................................................................................................... 26 15 U.S.C. § 2618 ........................................................................................................ 2 15 U.S.C. § 2681 ...................................................................................................... 13 15 U.S.C. § 2683 ........................................................................................................ 8 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 2 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ........................................................................................................ 2 42 U.S.C. § 4822 ...................................................................................................... 13 42 U.S.C. § 4841 ...................................................................................................... 14 42 U.S.C. § 4851 ...............................................................................................passim Pub. L. 94-317, 90 Stat. 695 (June 23, 1976) .......................................................... 15 Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672 (Oct. 28, 1992) ......................................... 26, 30, 33 iv Rules and Regulations 16 C.F.R. § 1303 ................................................................................................ 14, 16 24 C.F.R. § 35.86 ..................................................................................................... 19 24 C.F.R. § 35.88 ..................................................................................................... 18 24 C.F.R. § 35.110 ................................................................................................... 10 24 C.F.R. § 35.1320 ................................................................................................. 10 24 C.F.R. § 35.1340 ................................................................................................. 10 40 C.F.R. § 745.61 ..................................................................................................