Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Ebook80 pages1 hour

    Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    By United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Protection Agency by United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina The Environmental Protection Agency brought this case because they had data to suggest that tobacco smoke in the air constituted a carcinogenic hazard to humans. The argument was opposed by the major tobacco producers of the time, who, according to EPA, had used incorrect procedures to disprove their claims.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDigiCat
    Release dateJul 20, 2022
    ISBN8596547087120
    Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Related to Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Related ebooks

    Law For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency - United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

      United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

      Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

      EAN 8596547087120

      DigiCat, 2022

      Contact: [email protected]

      Table of Contents

      Cover

      Titlepage

      Text

      No. 6:93CV00370

      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

      FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

      WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION

      FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, THE COUNCIL FOR BURLEY TOBACCO,INC., UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED, PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, and GALLINS VENDING COMPANY,

      Plaintiffs,

      v. 6:93CV00370

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and CAROL BROWNER, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,

      Defendants.

      ORDER AND JUDGMENT

      OSTEEN, District Judge

      For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion entered contemporaneously herewith,

      IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted [117].

      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is denied [126]. The court vacates Chapter 1-6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992). To ripen its judgment for purposes of appellate review, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b), the court finds there is no just reason for delaying entry of judgment.

      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplement Pleading under Rule 15(d) is granted [120].

      This the 17th day July 1998.

      _____________________________

      United States District Judge

      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

      FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

      WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION

      FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, THE COUNCIL FOR BURLEY TOBACCO,INC., UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED, PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, and GALLINS VENDING COMPANY,

      Plaintiffs,

      v. 6:93CV00370

      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and CAROL BROWNER, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,

      Defendants.

      MEMORANDUM OPINION

      OSTEEN, District Judge

      This case is before the court on the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment on Counts I-III of the Complaint. These counts raise Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to EPA's report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA/600-6-90/006F, December 1992 (ETS Risk Assessment). EPA claims its authority to conduct the ETS Risk Assessment derives from the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99--499, 100 Stat. 1758-60 (1986) (Radon Research Act) (codified at 42 USC. 7401 note (1994)). In the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA evaluated the respiratory health effects of breathing secondhand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) and classified ETS as a Group A carcinogen, a designation meaning there is sufficient evidence to conclude ETS causes cancer in humans. Disputing the Assessment, Plaintiffs argue: EPA exceeded its authority under and violated the restrictions within the Radon Research Act; EPA did not comply with the Radon Research Act's procedural requirement; EPA violated administrative law procedure by making a conclusion regarding ETS before it concluded its risk assessment, and EPA's ETS Risk Assessment was not the result of reasoned decision making.(FN1) EPA denies the same and argues the administrative record (record) demonstrates reasoned decision making. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to supplement the pleadings. For the reasons stated herein, the court will enter an order granting Plaintiffs' motions.

      THE RADON RESEARCH ACT

      The Radon Research Act was enacted by Congress as Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and codified with the Clean Air Act at 42 USC. 7401 note. The act was based on Congress' finding: exposure to naturally occurring radon and indoor air pollutants poses public health risk[s], id. 492(2); Federal radon and indoor air pollutant research programs are fragmented and underfunded, id. 402(3); and an information base concerning exposure to radon and indoor air pollutants should be developed . . . . Id. 402(4). The act provides

      (a) Design of Program. - [The EPA] shall establish a research program with respect to radon gas and indoor air quality. Such program shall be designed to -

      (1) gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality in order to contribute to the understanding of health problems associated with the existence of air pollutants in the indoor environment;

      (2) coordinate Federal, State, local, and private research and development efforts relating to the improvement of indoor air quality; and

      (3) assess appropriate Federal government actions to mitigate the environmental and health risks associated with indoor air quality problems.

      (b) Program requirements. - The research program required under this section shall include -

      (1) research and development concerning the identification, characterization, and monitoring of the sources and levels of indoor air pollution . . . .

      . . . .

      (2) research relating to the effects of indoor air pollution and radon on human health;

      . . . .

      (6) the dissemination of information to assure the public availability of the findings of the activities under this section.

      Id. 403 (a) & (b). Congress also required a narrow construction of the authority delegated under the Radon Research Act. Nothing in the act shall be construed to authorize the [EPA] to carry out any regulatory program or any activity other than research, development, and related reporting, information dissemination, and coordination activities specified in [the Radon Research Act]. Id. 404.

      The Act requires EPA to establish two advisory groups to assist EPA in carrying out its statutory obligations under the Radon Research Act. One of the advisory groups is to be a committee comprised of representatives of federal agencies concerned with various aspects of indoor air quality, and the other group is to

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1