USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 1 of 50
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF
`FLORIDA, ENVIRONMENTAL
`WORKING GROUP, and CENTER FOR
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY,
` Respondent.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-1079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY VACATUR;
`MOTION FOR STAY PENDING EXPEDITED REVIEW
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`JONATHAN EVANS
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 844-7100 x318
`Fax: (510) 844-7150
`jevans@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`STEPHANIE M. PARENT
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`P.O. Box 11374
`Portland, OR 97211
`Tel: (971) 717-6404
`Fax: (503) 283-5528
`sparent@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Farmworker Association of Florida,
`Environmental Working Group, and Center for Biological Diversity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 2 of 50
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Farmworker Association of Florida,
`
`
`
`
`
`Environmental Working Group and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively,
`
`Petitioners) hereby certify as follows:
`
`(A) Parties and Amici
`
`
`
`
`
`(i) Parties, Intervenors, and Amici who Appeared in the District Court
`
`This case is a petition for review of final agency action, not an appeal from
`
`the ruling of a district court.
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii) Parties to this Case
`
`Petitioners: Farmworker Association of Florida, Environmental Working
`
`Group and Center for Biological Diversity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondents: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
`
`Intervenors: No parties have moved for leave to intervene at present.
`
`(iii) Amici in this Case
`
`None.
`
`(iv) Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosures
`
`Disclosure filed, see ECF Doc. #1888440 at 3-4.
`
`(B) Rulings Under Review
`
`
`
`Petitioners seek review of Respondent United States Environmental
`
`Protection Agency’s Order registering the use of the pesticide aldicarb on oranges
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 3 of 50
`
`and grapefruit in Florida, as set forth in its “Registration Decision for the Uses on
`
`Oranges and Grapefruit in Florida, Aldicarb” (Jan. 12, 2021) (A000001),1
`
`amendments to the aldicarb product labels for MEYMIK TECHNICAL (EPA Reg.
`
`No. 87895-2) (A000020) and AGLOGIC 15GG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-4)
`
`(A000028), and registration of a new product, AgLogic 15GG-OG (EPA Reg. No.
`
`87895-7) (A000034).
`
`(C) Related Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`This case has not previously been before this Court or any other court.
`
`
`
`
`1 “A” cites are to Petitioners’ consecutively paginated attachments, filed with this
`Motion. The attachments include documents cited in this Motion and supporting
`declarations, as well as standing declarations.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 4 of 50
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT RULE 18(a)(1)
`
`The undersigned certifies that this Motion for Stay and Expeditious
`
`
`
`Consideration complies with Circuit Rule 18(a)(1).
`
`Petitioners/Movants previously requested relief from EPA by a letter
`
`submitted electronically and in hard copy on March 26, 2021. See A000052.
`
`Petitioners/Movants provided a copy of that same letter to registrant AgLogic
`
`Chemical, LLC via overnight delivery and electronic mail at the contact
`
`information listed below:
`
`Antoine Puech, President and CEO
`AgLogic Chemical, LLC
`121 S. Estes Drive, Suite 101
`Chapel Hill, NC 27514
`antoinepuech@aglogicchemical.com
`info@aglogicchemical.com
`
`
`
`Petitioners/Movants met and conferred with Department of Justice counsel
`
`for EPA on March 29, 2021. After receiving no formal offer from EPA regarding
`
`the stay, Petitioners/Movants filed this motion for relief on April 2, 2021. Notice of
`
`this filing was provided by ECF to Respondent and via electronic mail to the
`
`counsel for the registrant, Elbert Lin at ELin@hunton.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 5 of 50
`
`Respectfully submitted this April 2, 2021,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Jonathan Evans
`JONATHAN EVANS (DC Cir Bar #53186)
`Center for Biological Diversity
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 844-7100 x318
`Fax: (510) 844-7150
`jevans@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`STEPHANIE M. PARENT (DC Bar #56357)
`Center for Biological Diversity
`P.O. Box 11374
`Portland, OR 97211
`Tel: (971) 717-6404
`Fax: (503) 283-5528
`sparent@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Farmworker
`Association of Florida, Environmental
`Working Group, and Center for Biological
`Diversity
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 6 of 50
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ................... ii
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT RULE 18(a)(1)................. iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. viii
`
`GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... xiii
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 2
`
`I. EPA Agreed to Cancel All Aldicarb Pesticide Products in 2010 ..................... 3
`
`II. EPA Approved New Registrant Aldicarb Products; Not Use on Citrus .......... 6
`
`III. EPA 2021 Registrations of Aldicarb Products for Use on Citrus..................... 7
`
`STANDING ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`STANDARDS FOR DECISION .............................................................................10
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................11
`
`I. EPA Clearly and Intentionally Violated the Endangered Species Act,
`Warranting Summary Disposition and Vacatur. .............................................11
`
`A. EPA Has Admitted Its Flagrant Violation of the ESA. .............................12
`
`B. The Seriousness of EPA’s Violations Weighs Heavily in Favor of
`Vacatur. ......................................................................................................15
`
`C. The Disruptive Consequences of Vacating EPA’s Registration Is Low. ..16
`
`II. EPA’s Orders Must Be Stayed ........................................................................19
`
`A. Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits ......................................19
`
`1. EPA Is Violating the Endangered Species Act. .......................................19
`
`2. EPA Is Violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
`Act. ...........................................................................................................19
`
`a. EPA understated or ignored risks of harm from use of aldicarb on
`citrus. ....................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 7 of 50
`
`b. EPA’s benefits from use of aldicarb on citrus do not outweigh the
`risks. ......................................................................................................26
`
`B. Petitioners and Their Members Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent a Stay
` ....................................................................................................................27
`
`1. Public health and water pollution impacts. ..............................................28
`
`2. Endangered species and wildlife impacts. ................................................30
`
`3. Probability of irreparable harm warrants a stay. ......................................31
`
`C. The Public Interest and Balance of the Equities Favor a Stay ..................33
`
`D. The Court Should Issue No Bond or Only a Minimal One. ......................35
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................35
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................37
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 8 of 50
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ....................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Allina Health Servs. v. Sibelius
`746 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................15
`
`Am. Rivers v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.D.C. 2003) ............................................................... 30, 34
`
`Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,
`724 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell,
`480 U.S. 531 (1987) ....................................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Beame v. Friends of Earth,
`434 U.S. 1310 (1977) ............................................................................................27
`
`Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar,
`612 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) ............................................................. 28, 31, 32
`
`Conserv. Law Found. v. Ross,
`422 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2019) ................................................................. 31, 34
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
` 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................................ 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`Consolidated Case No. 15-1054, Doc. # 1880656 (D.C. Cir Jan 19, 2021) .........14
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`No. 3:07-cv-02794-JCS, ECF No. 121 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2010) ......................14
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`No. 3:11-cv-00293-JCS, ECF Nos. 364, 366 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2019) ...................14
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 9 of 50
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Leavitt,
`No. 3:02-cv-01580-JSW, 2005 WL 2277030 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2005). ..........14
`
`Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Ross,
`480 F. Supp. 3d 236 (D.D.C. 2020) ......................................................................32
`
`Davis v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.,
`571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................10
`
`Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator
`882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989) ..............................................................................14
`
`Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA
`898 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ..............................................................................17
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ..............................................................................................35
`
`Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. U.S. EPA,
`130 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2000) .................................................................34
`
`Fund for Animals v. Clark,
`27 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 1998) ............................................................................33
`
`Fund for Animals v. Norton,
`281 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D.D.C. 2003) ......................................................................32
`
`Fund for Animals v. Turner,
`1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13426, 1991 WL 206232 (D.D.C. 1991) ........................30
`
`Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Cavel Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 07- 5120, 2007 WL 4723381 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................34
`
`League of Women Voters v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 31, 33
`
`Nat’l Association of Convenience Stores v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys.,
`746 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................16
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 10 of 50
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. Env’t Prot. Agency,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 21, 23
`
`Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Burford,
`835 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................28
`
`National Parks Conservation Association v. Jewell
`62 F. Supp. 3d. 7 (D.D.C. 2014) ...........................................................................12
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ....................................................................................... 10, 33
`
`North Carolina v. EPA
`550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). ..................................................................... 15,17
`
`NRDC v. EPA,
`489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 15, 16
`
`NRDC v. Morton,
`337 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1971) ...........................................................................35
`
`NRDC v. Morton,
`458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972) ..............................................................................35
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................20
`
`Sierra Club v. Marsh,
`872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989) .................................................................................34
`
`Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2012)...................................................................28
`
`Sills v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
`761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ..............................................................................11
`
`Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Veneman
`289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................15
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 11 of 50
`
`Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
`437 U.S. 153 (1978) ..............................................................................................12
`
`Vencor Nursing Homes v. Shalala,
`63 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999) ............................................................................32
`
`Walker v. Washington,
`627 F.2d 541 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ....................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA
`413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................13
`
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ........................................................................................... 10, 31
`
`Wis. Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Com.,
`758 F.2d 669 (1985) ..............................................................................................34
`
`Statutes
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) .............................................................................................14
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) .................................................................................................11
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136(bb) ...................................................................................................20
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136a ............................................................................................... 3, 6, 19
`
`Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 5E-2.031(6) ....................................................................16
`
`Fla. Stat. § 120.60 ....................................................................................................17
`
`Rules
`
`FRAP 28(a)(4) ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 12 of 50
`
`Other Authorities
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13 ...................................................................................................12
`
`D.C. Cir., Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures (2021) .................... 10, 11
`
`Donley, N. The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful
`pesticides (2019) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Federal Register
`
`75 Federal Register 62129 (Oct. 7, 2010) ..............................................................3, 4
`
`85 Federal Register 78851 (Dec. 7, 2020) ................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 13 of 50
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`
`
`EPA
`
`ESA
`
`FIFRA
`
`Florida Department of Agriculture
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act
`
`Florida Department of Agriculture and
`Consumer Services
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 18 and 27 and D.C.
`
`Circuit Rules 18 and 27, Farmworker Association of Florida, Environmental
`
`Working Group, and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively Petitioners)
`
`respectfully move for summary vacatur or for a stay pending judicial review of
`
`Respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Orders
`
`registering the use of the pesticide aldicarb on oranges and grapefruit in Florida, as
`
`set forth in its “Registration Decision for the Uses on Oranges and Grapefruit in
`
`Florida, Aldicarb” (Jan. 12, 2021) (A000001), amendments to the aldicarb product
`
`labels for MEYMIK TECHNICAL (EPA Reg. No. 87895-2) (A000020) and
`
`AGLOGIC 15GG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-4) (A000028), and registration of a new
`
`product, AgLogic 15GG-OG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-7) (A000034) (collectively,
`
`hereafter, “registration decisions”). Petitioners requested that EPA stay these
`
`orders on March 26, 2021. A000052. Should the Court deny the request for vacatur
`
`or stay, Petitioners request expedited briefing and consideration of this case before
`
`the application season on November 15, 2021.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Aldicarb is an old insecticide so dangerous that EPA cancelled its use on
`
`citrus in 2010 due to its dire consequences on the health of children and infants.
`
`Yet, in a rushed decision at the end of the last Administration, EPA conditionally
`
`registered use of aldicarb again on oranges and grapefruit in Florida. EPA
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 15 of 50
`
`intentionally ignored its clear statutory duties under the Endangered Species Act,
`
`thus, summary disposition is appropriate. Vacatur of the registration decisions is
`
`the presumptive remedy, moreover, EPA’s violation is serious and there are no
`
`disruptive consequences.
`
`If the Court does not vacate, a stay of the registration decisions is necessary.
`
`Even small exposures through food and water will irreparably harm infants and
`
`children, and wildlife. Aldicarb gets into groundwater and surface water,
`
`contaminating drinking water and habitat for wildlife. Petitioners will likely
`
`succeed on the merits of its claims. There is no question EPA violated the
`
`Endangered Species Act. Nor has EPA satisfied its duties under Federal
`
`Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act because it ignored or underestimated
`
`risks of harm that outweigh the minimal benefits. The public interest also favors a
`
`stay.
`
`Should the Court deny the request for vacatur or stay, Petitioners request
`
`expedited briefing and consideration of this case before the application season on
`
`November 15, 2021.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Aldicarb is a carbamate insecticide and a neurotoxin. A000111; A001354;
`
`A001360. Even short or small exposures can harm normal brain development in
`
`infants and young children with effects such as reduced working memory, lower
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 16 of 50
`
`IQ scores, and delayed growth and neurodevelopment. A001515; A001556.
`
`Farmworkers exposed to aldicarb over a lifetime may acquire autoimmune disease,
`
`often causing fatigue, joint pain, and other symptoms. A001516-1517; A001539
`
`Aldicarb is “very highly toxic” to wildlife – a single granule can kill a small bird.
`
`A000137; A000717. Aldicarb is banned in more than 100 countries.2
`
`I.
`
`EPA Agreed to Cancel All Aldicarb Pesticide Products in 2010
`
`Congress required that EPA “reregister” older pesticides to update analyses
`
`of risks to human health and safety and ensure that they continue to comply with
`
`the statutory registration standards, including no unreasonable adverse effects on
`
`humans or the environment. 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1. As part of this process, EPA
`
`concluded that use of aldicarb was not safe, especially for infants and children, and
`
`in particular, for use on citrus. A000647-649. As a result, EPA cancelled the use on
`
`citrus and was phasing out use of aldicarb on all other crops. 75 Fed. Reg. 62129,
`
`62130 (Oct. 7, 2010).
`
`During the reregistration process, EPA identified risks of concern from the
`
`use of aldicarb, which is acutely “highly toxic” by oral, dermal, and inhalation
`
`exposure. A000111; A001360. EPA’s preliminary acute risk assessments for food
`
`exposure alone exceed EPA’s level of concern, with the greatest exceedances for
`
`
`2 Donley, N. The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful
`pesticides (2019). Available at:
`https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 17 of 50
`
`infants, “the most highly exposed population subgroup.” A000111; A001366. EPA
`
`was also concerned about any additional exposure through drinking water,
`
`regardless of the source. A000111; A001366. For occupational risk, EPA has risks
`
`of concern for applicators “for all scenarios considered….” A00112; A001367.
`
`In August 2010, EPA’s revised assessment showed that the aggregate
`
`exposure exceeded EPA’s level of concern for infants and children up to age five.
`
`A000112; A000647-649. EPA found “Potatoes, citrus, and water are the greatest
`
`contributors to the aldicarb exposure.” A000648-649. Exposure to food alone
`
`could only “pass when potatoes and citrus are removed.” AR000661. Even
`
`removing citrus and potatoes, the aggregate food and water assessment still
`
`exceeded EPA’s level of concern for infants. Id.
`
`
`
`Following this dire assessment of risk to children and infants, Bayer
`
`CropScience LP entered a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to immediately
`
`cancel registration for use of aldicarb products on citrus and potatoes, and to cancel
`
`registration of aldicarb on additional crops by the end of 2014, with use expiring
`
`by 2018. A001423-1469. Bayer’s request to cancel “will terminate the last aldicarb
`
`pesticide products registered in the United States.” 75 Fed. Reg. 62129, 62130
`
`(Oct. 7, 2010). The cancellations of aldicarb products resulted in no discernible use
`
`of aldicarb by 2015. A000113. Maps of aldicarb use show heavy use in Florida in
`
`2010 and no estimated use in Florida by 2013. A000113-116.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 18 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 19 of 50
`
`II. EPA Approved New Registrant Aldicarb Products; Not Use on Citrus
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, in 2011, EPA conditionally granted registration of aldicarb for
`
`some crop uses, but not citrus, to a new registrant, AgLogic. A000117; A000627.
`
`EPA explained that in 2010 it had received additional toxicity data from Bayer
`
`CropScience “showing that aldicarb was more potent than originally estimated” in
`
`prior EPA risk assessments, and the “critical crop scenarios” showing “significant
`
`risks” were “citrus and potatoes.” A000628.
`
`
`
`In 2017, EPA issued an Interim Registration Review Decision for aldicarb to
`
`incorporate new science and update the analyses as part of registration review. 7
`
`U.S.C. § 136a(g); A000117-118; A000422. This did not include use on citrus
`
`because EPA had not reapproved use on citrus, especially in the Central Ridge of
`
`Florida, which is “very vulnerable” to groundwater contamination. A00000424;
`
`A000452.
`
`
`
`In August 2018, EPA denied AgLogic’s request for registration of its
`
`product containing aldicarb, AgLogic 15GG, for use on citrus in Florida under
`
`Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
`
`for a Special Local Need, 7 U.S.C. § 136v(c). A000120; A001470. EPA refused
`
`because aldicarb could not be used safely on citrus. A000120-121; A001472.
`
`EPA explained that the cancellation of use of aldicarb on citrus and potatoes
`
`“was necessary” because the magnitude of the residues on oranges and potatoes
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 20 of 50
`
`“from food consumption alone could not meet the acceptable levels . . . .”
`
`A001471. EPA further explained that there is concern for children 1-2 years old,
`
`who are the most highly exposed subgroup. Id. And, when food consumption is
`
`combined with estimated drinking water exposure, EPA stated that “the total
`
`exposure was close to 30 times greater than allowable exposure in the acute risk
`
`threshold.” Id. EPA also noted that Florida citrus “is grown in an area highly
`
`vulnerable to groundwater exposure.” Id. EPA pointed to data that indicated that
`
`“registration of aldicarb on citrus would prevent the Agency from making a safety
`
`finding.” Id. EPA declined to register use of aldicarb on citrus, pointing instead to
`
`alternatives, such as “new chemistries, new growing techniques, planting with
`
`greening-tolerant rootstocks, continued hybridization of citrus trees, cybrids,
`
`nutritional supplements, and biological controls . . . .” A001470.
`
`III. EPA 2021 Registrations of Aldicarb Products for Use on Citrus
`
`
`
`Despite EPA’s August 2018 refusal to register aldicarb for use on citrus in
`
`Florida, EPA did just that in a rushed process in the waning hours of the last
`
`Administration. On December 7, 2020, EPA provided notice of a 30-day
`
`opportunity to comment on AgLogic’s application to register new use of aldicarb
`
`on oranges and grapefruit in Florida and Texas. 85 Fed. Reg. 78851 (Dec. 7, 2020).
`
`EPA did not provide any further analysis with this notice to allow the public to
`
`meaningfully comment. On January 11, 2021, EPA posted its conditional
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 21 of 50
`
`“Registration Decision for the Uses on Oranges and Grapefruit in Florida,
`
`Aldicarb.” A000001. EPA’s decision includes amendments to the aldicarb product
`
`labels for MEYMIK TECHNICAL (EPA Reg. No. 87895-2) (A000020) and
`
`AGLOGIC 15GG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-4) (A000028), and registration of a new
`
`product, AgLogic 15GG-OG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-7) (A000052). On the same
`
`date, EPA posted the documents purporting to support this decision (Docket No.
`
`EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0600). EPA approved aldicarb for use on citrus only between
`
`the dates of November 15-April 30 and terminating on April 30, 2023. A000005.
`
`These final registration decisions are the subject of this Petition for Review and
`
`motion filed on March 3, 2021, within 60 days pursuant to FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §
`
`136n(b); FRAP 28(a)(4).
`
`STANDING
`
`Petitioners have standing to bring this claim because protection of
`
`farmworkers, public health, the environment, and wildlife is germane to their
`
`interests and their members’ interests in those interests would be harmed by EPA’s
`
`authorization of aldicarb. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety
`
`Admin., 724 F.3d 243, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Petitioners provide declarations from
`
`members with strong personal and professional interests in Florida’s farmworkers,
`
`wildlife, and waterways, and who are concerned about the adverse effects of
`
`aldicarb on their health. See Declarations of Christina Celano (A000079); Elise
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 22 of 50
`
`Pautler Bennett (A000089); John R. Cassani (A000089); Eugenia Economos
`
`(A001491); and Ronald Ney (A001499).
`
`This Court has already recognized that EPA’s failure to engage in ESA
`
`consultation when registering pesticides for approval creates a “demonstrable risk”
`
`to Petitioners’ members, who have “concrete aesthetic and recreational interests”
`
`in ESA listed species. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 182-85
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2017); A000056-107; A001491-1505. Aldicarb causes adverse effects
`
`on a range of taxa, such as birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and aquatic
`
`invertebrates. A000364. Petitioners’ members have interest in ESA listed species
`
`in these taxa—such as the Florida scrub jay, Audubon’s crested caracara, eastern
`
`indigo snake, sand skink, wood stork, and sea turtles—with habitat overlapping
`
`areas where aldicarb will be used on citrus. A000081-85; A000091; A000093-95;
`
`A000103; A000063-78. These adverse effects result from direct consumption by
`
`wildlife or application to habitat for ESA protected species, runoff, and
`
`contamination of water supplies. E.g. A000364. These same injuries also
`
`demonstrate harm from EPA’s failure to comply with the “no unreasonable adverse
`
`effect” standard of FIFRA. Accordingly, EPA’s authorization of aldicarb in Florida
`
`is likely to injure the interests of Petitioners’ members. See, e.g., A000079-107;
`
`A001491-1505.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 23 of 50
`
`STANDARDS FOR DECISION
`
`Summary vacatur is warranted where the flaws in an agency action are “so
`
`clear as to justify expedited action.” Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545
`
`(D.C. Cir. 1980); D.C. Cir., Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures (2021)
`
`at 36 (summary reversal appropriate when the traditional decisional process would
`
`not affect the Court’s decision).
`
`To obtain a judicial stay, Petitioners must demonstrate: (a) likelihood of
`
`success on the merits; (b) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
`
`absence of injunctive relief; (c) that the balance of equities favors an injunction;
`
`and (d) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
`
`Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The final two factors “merge when the Government is
`
`the opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). These factors are
`
`balanced such that a higher showing on one factor can offset a lower showing on
`
`another factor. Davis v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir.
`
`2009).3
`
`
`3 While the D.C. Circuit has questioned the “sliding scale,” cases applying it
`remain good law. Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Met. Area Transit
`Auth., 897 F.3d 314, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
`Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2009) (“the Court finds that the
`D.C. Circuit’s sliding scale standard remains viable even in light of the decision in
`Winter”). The late Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent in Winter, observed without
`objection that the majority did not limit a court’s equitable discretion to balance the
`injunction factors. Winter, 555 U.S. at 51 (Ginsburg, dissenting).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1892998 Filed: 04/02/2021 Page 24 of 50
`
`To obtain expedited consideration, the movant must sh