Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Plain-English summary

EPA Region III filed an administrative complaint against Bethlehem Steel Corporation seeking penalties under section 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The complaint alleged that Bethlehem Steel filed a false report in violation of TSCA section 15(3). An Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint as barred by the general five-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The Environmental Appeals Board relied on its recent decision in 3M Company and held that the limitations period did not apply to TSCA administrative penalties. It reversed the dismissal, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 15 U.S.C. §§ 2607, 2614, and 2615; 28 U.S.C. § 2462; 40 C.F.R. § 22.30
• Outcome: The dismissal was reversed, EPA's complaint was reinstated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: The general five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 does not apply to administrative penalty assessments under TSCA.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION 29

IN THE MATTER OF BETHLEHEM STEEL
CORPORATION

TSCA Appeal No. 92-1

FINAL DECISION

Decided May 12, 1992

Syllabus

The Environmental Protection Agency filed an administrative complaint against
Bethlehem Steel Corporation for the assessment of administrative penalties under
§ 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2615(a). On December 23,
1991, Administrative Law Judge J. F. Greene granted Bethlehem Steel's motion to
dismiss the complaint as barred by the general statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C.
§ 2462.

Held: In light of the recent decision in 3M Company (Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing) TSCA Appeal No. 90-3 (CJO, February 28, 1992), holding that the
five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 does not apply to the assessment
of administrative penalties under TSCA, the Environmental Appeals Board reverses
Judge Greene's December 23, 1991 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and reinstates
the complaint.

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Ronald L.
McCallum, Edward E. Reich, and Timothy J. Dowling (Acting).

Per curiam:

This is an action for the assessment of administrative penalties
under § 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2615(a).
EPA Region III filed a complaint against Respondent Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, alleging that Bethlehem Steel had filed a false report
in violation of TSCA Section 15(3), which provides, inter alia, that
it shall be unlawful for any person

to fail or refuse to (A) establish or maintain records,
(B) submit reports, notices, or other information, or
(C) permit access to or copying of records, as required
by this chapter or a rule thereunder.

VOLUME 4

30 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

15 U.S.C. § 2614(3). In its answer to the complaint, Respondent ar-
gued that the complaint is barred by the general statute of limitations
at 28 U.S.C. § 2462, because it was filed more than five years after
the date upon which the erroneous report was submitted. Respondent
also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same ground.
Administrative Law Judge J.F. Greene (“Presiding Officer”) agreed
that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C.
§ 2462, and on December 23, 1991, she issued an Order Granting
Motion to Dismiss. The Region appealed.

In light of the recent decision in 3M Company (Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing), TSCA Appeal No. 90-3 (February 28, 1992),
holding that the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462
does not apply to the assessment of administrative penalties under
TSCA, we reverse the Presiding Officer's December 23, 1991 Order
Granting Motion to Dismiss and reinstate the complaint. Accordingly,
we remand this case for further proceedings.¹

So ordered.²

¹The Region's appeal brief also raised the issue of whether the statute of limita-
tions at 28 U.S.C. § 2462 begins to run before a continuing violation of TSCA sections
8(A) and 15(3), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2607(A) and 2614(3), has abated. Because we have con-
cluded that the statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2462 does not apply to TSCA
administrative penalty proceedings, it is not necessary to address this issue.

The Region has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Response to Bethlehem Steel's
reply to the Region's appeal brief. The motion is accompanied by the response brief
the Region wants to file. Bethlehem Steel in turn has filed a Partial Opposition
to Motion for Leave to File Response to Reply Brief. The Board believes that the
Region's appeal brief and Bethlehem Steel's reply to the appeal brief adequately ad-
dress the issue of whether the statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies
to TSCA administrative penalty proceedings. Accordingly, the Board has not considered
the Region's response brief, and the Region's motion for leave to file it is denied.
Bethlehem Steel's opposition brief also was not considered.

²The Environmental Appeals Board, as the Administrator's delegatee, has author-
ity to decide appeals of initial decisions in TSCA penalty cases. See 57 Fed. Reg.
5324-26 (Feb. 13, 1992) (revising 40 CFR §§ 22.04(a) & 22.30 to reflect the role
of the Environmental Appeals Board as the final decisionmaker in appeals of initial
decisions under Part 22).

VOLUME 4