## Facts

- The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires importers to submit a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) at least 90 days before importing a “new” chemical.
- Between August 1980 and July 1986, 3M imported two chemicals later determined to be “new” and thus subject to TSCA § 5’s PMN requirement.
- For “Chemical A,” 3M mistakenly believed the supplier was domestic; it later learned the source was a Canadian affiliate, making the chemical imported and “new,” and its customs brokers falsely certified TSCA compliance.
- For “Chemical B,” 3M assumed it was identical to an inventory-listed chemical due to shared code and use; later review showed it was not identical, so PMNs were required and customs certifications were inaccurate.
- 3M self-reported the Chemical A violations to EPA on July 28, 1986, and the Chemical B violations on September 16, 1986.
- On September 2, 1988, EPA filed an administrative complaint seeking civil penalties under TSCA § 16(a)(2)(A) for failure to file PMNs and for inaccurate customs certifications.
- An EPA administrative law judge and the agency’s appellate authority concluded 28 U.S.C. § 2462 did not apply to TSCA administrative penalty proceedings and assessed penalties.
- 3M petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit, arguing § 2462’s five-year limitations period barred penalties for older violations.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies to administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties.
2. Whether an EPA administrative adjudication assessing monetary penalties is a “proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” under § 2462.
3. Whether, under § 2462, a penalty claim accrues when the violation occurs or only when the agency discovers (or reasonably could have discovered) the violation.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part.
- Section 2462 applies to administrative “proceedings,” including EPA administrative penalty actions.
- An EPA adjudication to assess a civil penalty is a “proceeding for the enforcement” of a penalty within § 2462.
- The five-year limitations period begins when the claim first accrues—when the violation occurs—not when EPA discovers or could have discovered it.
- EPA’s September 2, 1988 complaint was timely only for violations occurring on or after September 2, 1983; earlier violations were time-barred.
- The case was remanded for recalculation or reassessment of penalties consistent with the limitations ruling.

## Legal Principles

- The term “action, suit or proceeding” in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 includes administrative enforcement proceedings.
- Government efforts to impose monetary civil penalties through agency adjudication are “proceeding[s] for the enforcement” of penalties under § 2462.
- For § 2462, a claim “first accrue[s]” at the time of the underlying violation, absent explicit statutory language adopting a discovery-based trigger.
- Agencies may not extend § 2462’s limitations period for civil penalties by invoking a generalized discovery rule without clear congressional authorization.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that EPA administrative civil-penalty proceedings under TSCA are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2462’s five-year statute of limitations, which runs from the date of the violation; the court barred penalties for violations outside that window and remanded for a penalty determination limited to timely violations.


3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994)