Tobacco Documents Online

SENT 9Y,HELLER EHRMAN ;11-14-94 ; 15;17 ~ 2064479546- CavinALon & BUrlin97x 6 0'j'A=8 M RR .1TTDNS BCN 34.08.355(3).....•••••••••.•••....•:........ 22 RCN 34.05.370(4)................. •••••••••..... 16 RCW 34.05.530 ................................... 13 &C7 34,05.870(7)(O) ............................ 26 RCN 49.17 .................. :......... ......... 4,19 RCp 49.17.070(6)...........' ................... 23, .IV=.-•' •VY% • C Y 29 U.S.C. 5655(e).......... ' ..............:.... 19 RAP 2.3(b) ............................ 13, 3.4, 16, 30 8tfqross.d 8maoad 9ub3titnt. 8on.a ai11, 4510, xashiaqton Lavs of 1994, aA. 240.... .........'........... 30 iil - ~rc»-as<61

SENT BY:HELLEA EHRMAN. ;17-14-84 ; i5;15 i 2064470648~ CavinOton & BUrlingtit 3 liO. 19677-1-11 cOIIRT OF "PShIS, DIPISION II OF T88 ST71TE OF WASAINGTON AVIATION NEST CORPORl1TION, FT AL. Appellants, v. W11SE[IHGTON S'1'ATB DEP$RTlSELiT OF LXAOR & INDUSTRIBS and !lBRR HRONli, DIREi.'1'OR OF THS WA88IN4TON 8R71T8 DEPIIRTlDB1@ OP L7180R & INDIISTRIES Rppondants. RSSPONDENTSf !lmfORAND01i IN OPPOSITION Ta MOTION TO MODIFY COl41ISSIONBRIS RULF.Y1O . C83LS8TIRE O. GRRGOniE xttorney Gennral SsT.LVrr a. rvx`J•r . lyiAsRihsLant attorney Geaaeral bttornays1ros6Appeliants Dep.rta.nt of Labor and IsulustYies and Mark Sravn, Direator ol'Dapartment of Labor i 2ndustxis Oftica ot 'tbs Attorney aeneral z,anor aad Inlustries Division P.O. Box 40141 Olympia, 1Pashiaqton 98804-0121 Telephoae (Z06) 4S9-6S67 - }4=Bav=94s"'6:34u

SENT DYtHELLER EAPMAN ;11-14-94 ; 75;19 ; 2054470848+ CovinAtan & BUnling.41U disturbed. II. aT1r2mmar op :at<sa To properly analyze the request of aqpellants, it is important to understand the background that led to the a,dopbien of the challenged ruleb. In 1988,. in respons9 to qropinq concerns about indoor air quality and problems such as "sick building syndroaaM, Governor Gardner^ oatablishsd an Indoor Air Quality 2nteraqancy Task lorea. Participating aqanaies included the Department af Labor atfd Iadustries, the Department of Health, the Dapartaent of Ecology, and the Washington Stata Energy o!liaa. This group ultimately rseoaaendad that the Department of Labor and Industries proaulqata rulee regulating indoor air quality. In,i991, the Department drafted a set ot indoor air quality regulations under the authority of the Washington Induat;ial Safety and Health Act (1rlexA) (RCW 49.17): These proposed draft regulations addressed itsues such as.ths operation and maintanasies of hsating and 4

SENT BY:HELLER EHRMAN 2C644?0648- CovinAton & BUrling:# 5 TIlSLB OF bVTHOASTI26 m7Irs ezae±e Douehatta v. Bet~al Sahecl Oiat., 117 titf.ld 205, P.Zd 1362 (1991)........... 14 F1_.ka oaeit t L a+.aQaent earnieaa Co. • v. Riche~mfd . 106 SPn.Zd 614, P.Sd 356 (19a6).....,...... 8 Ea~1ay y. stata,. • • - 103. Nn.2d 768, 696 P.7d 77:(1963)......... 14 rnduatria anioa aan~t_ AaL-G,xe ys • ~.rican Patral Inetituta (nAesea._R CiM) ' . 448 II.B. 0607 (1960)...9, 10, 11, 23, 24, 75, 28, ,tla Kavbuxv v. Son 53 Ori.1Q 716, 336 P.2d 67a (1939)......... , 14 Nnah Eay~e~F+w*• er .,.~...a._ y. Fi~ nA~ri6a, ,•119 Wm3d 464 (1992)..... .i4,.16, 17, 18, 20, 23 ii

SENT WHELLcR EHRMAN :11-14-94 ; 15:20 ; 2064470649- covington & Burling;ii12 requlatioaa. alter reviewing input frem thnse public haarings,, LaZ Director Xark Erorn deaided not to proaulqate the vast majority of the proposed indoor air quality reqv,lations. idoxevar, he did decide to enact the 'seCtion of tIlO rules regarding control of.anviroxmontal tobacco amoka. These rules vere adopted on llarch 16, 1994, vith an eftectiva date OZ Septeaber 1, 1994. The appeilant tobacco coaparsies wara avare of the Deparbont's,rnlafalcing efforts, and played an active role in the process. Despite that fact, thsir.c"llenqe to the rules vas not l12ed until Ju?.y 13, 1994 (alnost four montbs altar the ridis Nare adopted) . ,=n late August, 1994, the Dswtilant ennemnceri that thr na1os would not be erffernad until October 1, 1994 (rather than the origiaally .cheduled data of 8epbnber 13 . The oaly reason for this delay vas to clasity ooAlusion by etployers who arronaously thonqht that actions by the Joint, 7u3sinistrwtiva Rules Ravier Coaittee had soaehor delayed 6 "--" 1~~4-NOf-`5:3Zn1 ....7 7 ., 1 •...._. .,,....-..... w.,:....

SENT BY:HELLER ENRMAN :11-14-84 i 15;17 ; 206447684g--cc „,Igton & Burling;# 6 xotions. a copy ot her ruling is attached to this amaorandam we Appendix A. The appellants now ask this court to ravoraa the oranrs of Judqa strephy and Coaiaaionar Waatharsby and to grant the •ataya denierd by the trisl court and to acoapt discretionary review of the trial court's denial of their aotiona for summary judgaent and"atay of agency action. Sn their motion to aodity coaissionar Wsathersbylo ruling, tha appellants have taknn a dittarant taclt than in previous amorandumn. !or exanipla, the first santencs on p.l statas thats This osse involves a highly controvarsial subjaot--tba quastion whether, because • certain non-ciqaratts-satokars aay not like• •snvironmental tobacco saoke• (or arrma) in ttse vorxpaae., aT8 should be totally banned troa all otlica Yorkplaoss throw3h the stat.e of Washington. Contrary to the aDove charactarisation, the iesus in this oase is vhathar the ahallanqad raqulations ars valid under the Adiinistrative Procedurs Aot. It is not a aattar of resolving a controversial political issua. (0 R) ~ 3 O R) ~ V A

SENT BY:NELLER EHRMAN t11-14-a4.: i5:22 ; 2064470646- cavington & Burling;R17 posad'by the regulated substanea. Ca p. 30 at lirts 19, Svdgs strophy ttion askad the tollovinq qusst'ion: If I understaild your positionr than, that aven though th.rs•s no oossnt in the CYs which spacificallp addrsssss the significant risk issna, it' your position that on an .:eaziaation of the rscord below, aidsd perhaps by tas input .from !r. Psard, that this Court can disasrn.tb+e path o2 rationals or reasoning by Li2 in da*Tz{r+r„ in assaac., that th.re was a susfiaient siqnitioant risk to warraat adoption of the rnls? is that your nosition? Mr. Furst: Yaa, that i: zSr position ..•. Verbati: Record of ssptoabar 1, 1ff4, p. ]C, 1'iaa 19 throngls p.3i, line 3. (EfpEalis addad) . Ths court then asked the tollowiaq questions 8v.n though it's LiS's balisf and hops that significant risk in the context perhaps of ggnum is not applicabls here, not wittlstandiruJ that bsiisl2 or your contention is that the path -- Cho court oiA discsrs ths path of proasss or rationale fros the record? OerbRti= Record of Saptsabsr 1, 1994, Q.3i, Linss s-13. Zn answering Judq. atrophys two-parC question, the D.pastment first explaiasd its ttsaozy as to . significant r"isk in the alLgiII" osas, and than stat.ds 11 jiG-MCr-94 6r34P 'd

SENT S`I;.HELLEft EHRMAIY i11-54-s4 7 15Z21 ; 2064470848- Cavington & Burling414 connection kstvasn ET8 aad'lung cancer and cardiovascular dissave., 1lacording to app.liahts, thi sets a differeat standard of proof than Judge 8trophy thought likaly appliess in this cas. - that there sost De svidancs of a "significant risk" ia Lhs workplace. ApysllaIIts then argua that tht parties Yill, be wlabla to procsad to trial bacanse,thay rill not lviov vhinh standard of proof applies in this aatter. Even if appellants are correct, which they ars noi, that,thern is a ditfarsnas between Sudqo Strophy$s and Comsissionar tteathatoby•s rulings, it would be irrslsvant'.t TIIa only issues before Coni.ssioner *eatiiarsby ..r.ra the propristy of granting disarstionary rsvisv and a stay pending review. The Ccsisslonsr's unpublishad ruling ¢esa not sat the "lar of ths oasa" on the degree of proof, or what level of, risk jnstifies r.qulation under 1RSaa,' As in ~ •~•+~+^~M 106 1IC. 61{. 670e TJI Y.9d 3i6 (14a6)e s.ovasidasatioa dael"d, for TJfap~ppMitdAA that the lq o! Us ca."e do6trlHe* only appll6s to faNia •••lt" dweL" ny' aa app.ilat. tatet in a pdes appaai. Ras+, ah. vwsl7 taws , . . . ,., 14~.Bov=95i-.@:34p.

.SENT BY;HELLER EHRMAN :51-14-84 ; 15;20 t 2064470848+ Covington & Burlingw3 iaplemsntation of the rulss.' nltdongh appellants imply otharrise, this 30 day chatiqe uas.not mads in responea to their action ia . Suparior Coart, and did not retleat any change in the Dapartmsntea datsraination reqardinq the health risks to vorkars Pron 3T8. The appellants! aotions for saaa,ry yudq.ant and stay of agency action r.;e arguad before JUdqe Strophy on SaptOxbar 1, 1594. The court announced its ruling on Septaaber 28. Tha present interloontory appeai wara tiled in this oontt on October 4, 1994. D. us. a~ TEara vs no issnas Oai..e av tha Coort CeK~.taaioaar~f at3line ]1pps11ants argua at pp. 20-29 of their msaoraadtim that the Conaissienar's ruling has cavsed •nar" probless in this aatter that require review by thia court. They argue that the Coaiseionari rnlinq aliors the ETS rsFnlation to be upheld if there is a causal 2 7AW 34.05.660 pavrLtlas tLat the sindinps of tna Joint adeiaf.rsati.. talas a..ier oaasittea .bal1 not be eal.rant in jndloial preordinqs- iatasqsttinq rulss. 7 t -- nfTtfw`,45~:.:6k3-4o1

SENT BYtHELLER EHRNAN ;,11-14-94 7 15:23 ; "26G1i4UB48- Covingt6n & Durlingi#1B introduetory matarial issuad vith the prosuigatioa ot the rule appears to satisfy this rsquir.aant. 8ovavsr, I conclude that this requirswnt aay be satiasiad it Daclarant Paard's analysis vas isplicit in the Dspartasat's dataraination tb.at l.ha rule vas reasonably appropriate and ' necesaary for protsction of the health of vorkars. Thus, contrary to ths arqussnts sadd by appellants, no nev facts or •oonousions" hava b.an raissd for the first tise in this court vhich vould justily this court aceaptinq discr.tionary review on thi thsory that laota r.lied upon by the trial court have "nor bsan aekCtoolsdqad to be iaoorrsot." O. Th. atandarda fer Oraatiaa D4.arakienr la.ia~ nw_!ar !a~ i.!lb1 la.. lrnt a.n a~ali.d. Onoe it is datersiaad that thsre are no "nsv" issuas bstors this court, it b.aoses clear that the iastiss balors this court ars the sasa ai tIIoea presentad to tas Cosalssienar -~ namaly, whstDsr the trial court,s danial of a lfotion ior Summary JUdAaatt aad danial of a, xation for Stay of Agency Action pursuant to RCW 34.05.550 seat the atandarda Cpr.qrantinq review undar'ARP 2.3(b). 13 .Y ~MOV•4C~~b:)ie