Pesticide Action Network North America v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                 FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK          No. 14-72794
    NORTH AMERICA; NATURAL
    RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.,
    ORDER
    PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH
    AMERICA; NATURAL RESOURCES
    DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Filed August 12, 2016
    Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, A. Wallace Tashima,
    and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
    2         IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK N. AM.
    SUMMARY*
    Environmental Law
    The panel denied the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency’s request for an additional six months to
    take final action on its proposed revocation rule and its final
    response to Pesticide Action Network North American and
    Natural Resources Defense Counsel’s 2007 administrative
    petition.
    The panel held that the requested six-month delay was not
    justified in light of the EPA’s history in the matter, as well of
    the court’s previous extensions. The panel directed the EPA
    to take final action by March 31, 2017. The panel retained
    jurisdiction over any further related proceedings.
    COUNSEL
    Patti A. Goldman and Kristen Boyles, Earthjustice, Seattle,
    Washington, for Petitioners.
    Erica M. Zilioli, Environmental Defense Section; John C.
    Cruden, Assisant Attorney General, Environment & Natural
    Resources Division; United States Department of Justice,
    Washington, D.C.; Mark Dyner, Office of General Counsel;
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
    D.C.; for Respondents.
    *
    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
    been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
    IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK N. AM.                3
    Stanley H. Abramson, Donald C. McLean, Kathleen R.
    Heilman, and Sylvia G. Costelloe, Arent Fox LLP,
    Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae CropLife America,
    Agricultural Retailers Association, Almond Alliance of
    California, American Soybean Association, Beet Sugar
    Development Foundation, California Citrus Mutual, National
    Agricultural Aviation Association, National Corn Growers
    Association, National Cotton Council, National Potato
    Council, National Sorghum Producers, Oregonians for Food
    & Shelter, Schertz Aerial Service Inc., U.S. Apple
    Association, Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, and
    Western Growers Association.
    ORDER
    Citing “extraordinary circumstances,” the United States
    Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requests an
    additional six month extension to take final action on its
    proposed revocation rule and its final response to Pesticide
    Action Network North America and Natural Resources
    Defense Council’s (collectively, “PANNA”) 2007
    administrative petition. CropLife and the other amici would
    double that extension. PANNA asks us to deny the EPA’s
    request in light of the nearly decade-long delay in issuance of
    the rule and the documented health risks.
    The “extraordinary circumstances” claimed this time—
    that EPA issued its proposed rule before completing two
    studies that may bear on the Agency’s final rule—is another
    variation on a theme “of partial reports, missed deadlines, and
    vague promises of future action” that has been repeated for
    the past nine years. In re Pesticide Action Network, 
    798 F.3d 809
    , 811 (9th Cir. 2015). EPA’s continued delay is all the
    4        IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK N. AM.
    more significant since there are “considerable human health
    interests prejudiced by it.” 
    Id. at 814.
    EPA’s nine-year delay in taking action was “objectively
    extreme” when we received PANNA’s petition for
    mandamus, and nothing has changed that would justify
    EPA’s continued failure to respond to the pressing health
    concerns presented by chlorpyrifos. While we acknowledge
    that “evidence may be imperfect . . . the feasibility inquiry is
    formidable, and . . . premature rulemaking is undesirable”,
    Public Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Chao, 
    314 F.3d 143
    ,
    154–55 (3d Cir. 2002), at this stage, a claim of premature
    rulemaking has come and gone. The requested six-month
    delay is not justified in light of EPA’s history in this matter
    as well as the court’s previous extensions.
    EPA’s request for an additional six months to take final
    action is DENIED. EPA is directed to take final action by
    March 31, 2017. This is the final extension, and the court
    will not grant any further extensions.
    The panel shall retain jurisdiction over any further
    proceedings related to this petition.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-72794

Judges: O'Scannlain, Tashima, McKeown

Filed Date: 8/12/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024