USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 1 of 54
`
`No. 21-1079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR REMAND WITHOUT VACATUR
`AND RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`VACATUR; MOTION FOR STAY PENDING EXPEDITED
`REVIEW
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`Erin Koch
`Alyssa Gsell
`U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEAN E. WILLIAMS
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`Mark Arthur Brown
`Sarah Izfar
`Hubert Lee
`Attorneys
`Environment and Nat. Resources Div.
`U.S. Department of Justice
`150 M Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20002
`(202) 305-0490
`Sarah.izfar@usdoj.gov
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 2 of 54
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED
`CASES
`
`A. Parties and Amici
`
`
`
`Except for the following, all parties, intervenors, and amici
`
`appearing in this court are listed in the Petitioners’ Motion for
`
`Summary Vacatur; Motion for Stay Pending Expedited Review:
`
`1) AgLogic Chemical, LLC has moved to intervene.
`
`B. Rulings Under Review
`
`
`
`
`
`References to the rulings at issue appear in Petitioners’ motion.
`
`C. Related Cases
`
`There are no related cases within the meaning of Circuit Rule
`
`28(a)(1)(C).
`
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2021
`
`/s/ Sarah Izfar
`
`
`
`SARAH IZFAR
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 3 of 54
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND
`RELATED CASES .............................................................................. i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... iv
`
`GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ ix
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Legal Background .................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act ............................................................... 2
`
`Endangered Species Act ................................................. 4
`
`B. Historical Background ............................................................. 7
`
`C. Procedural History ................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The January 2021 Decision ............................................ 9
`
`Petition for Review and Procedural History ................ 11
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 12
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................ 13
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 15
`
`I.
`
`EPA’s Acknowledgment That It Did Not Make an ESA
`Effects Determination Provides a Proper Basis to
`Remand This Action. ....................................................................... 15
`
`II. Vacatur of the Conditional Registration Approval Is
`Not Required During the Pendency of the Remand. ..................... 18
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 4 of 54
`
`A. Based on the Record Before the Court, the ESA
`Error Here Is Not So Serious a Deficiency That
`Vacatur is Compelled. ............................................................ 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Lack of an Effects Determination Does
`Not Require Vacatur. .................................................... 20
`
`EPA Satisfied Its Obligations Under
`FIFRA. ........................................................................... 24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Substantial Record Support Exists for
`the Conditional Registration Approval. .............. 24
`
`EPA Reasonably Weighed the Risks
`and Benefits of the Proposed Use of
`Aldicarb. ............................................................... 29
`
`B. Equitable Considerations Weigh Against Vacatur
`of the Conditional Registration Approval. ............................ 34
`
`III. A Stay Is Not Warranted ................................................................ 39
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 42
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 44
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 5 of 54
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES*
`
`CASES
`
`*Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulat. Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ............................................. 13, 18, 19, 39
`
`
`A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala,
`62 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ......................................................... 35, 36
`
`
`American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan,
` 452 U.S. 490 (1981) ................................................................................ 15
`
`B.J. Alan Co. v. ICC,
`897 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ......................................................... 15, 16
`
`
`Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
`462 U.S. 87 (1983) ................................................................................. 15
`
`
`California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 36
`
`
`Cascade Broadcasting Group Ltd. v. FCC,
`822 F.2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ............................................................. 29
`
`
`*Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ....................... 2, 16, 20, 21, 23, 36, 37, 42
`
`
`Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 7
`
`
`Ethyl Corp. v. Browner,
`989 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .................................................. 13, 15, 16
`
`
`Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA,
`935 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ................................................. 18, 34, 35
`
`* Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 6 of 54
`
`
`Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC,
`280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................. 19
`
`
`Fund for Animals v. Frizzell,
`530 F.2d 982 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ............................................................... 41
`
`
`Heartland Regional Medical Center v. Sebelius,
`566 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 23
`
`
`Huls America Inc. v. Browner,
`83 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........................................................... 29, 31
`
`
`International Union, UMW v. FMSHA,
`920 F.2d 960 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ......................................................... 13, 18
`
`
`Kleppe v. Sierra Club,
`427 U.S. 390 (1976) ............................................................................... 15
`
`
`Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council,
`490 U.S. 360 (1989) ............................................................................... 15
`
`
`Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman,
`310 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................... 13
`
`
`Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
`Insurance Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................. 15
`
`
`National Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 3
`
`
`National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Semonite,
`422 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2019) ......................................................... 34
`
`
`Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
` 735 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................... 14, 15
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 7 of 54
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ......................................................................... 14, 40
`
`
`Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
`896 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 37
`
`
`Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC,
`184 F.3d 872 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ............................................................... 23
`
`
`Sills v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
`761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ............................................................... 13
`
`
`Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman,
`289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 19
`
`
`Washington Toxics Coal. v. EPA,
`413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 7
`
`
`Water Keeper Alliance v. United States Dep't of Defense,
`271 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001) ................................................................... 41
`
`
`Woodstream Corp. v. Jackson,
`845 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2012) ................................................. 30, 31
`
`
`STATUTES
`
` U.S.C. § 136(p) ......................................................................................... 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136(bb) ........................................................................... 4, 17, 24
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(a) ................................................................................... 2, 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4) ................................................................................... 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) ............................................................................... 3, 4
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7) ................................................................................... 4
`
`vi
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 8 of 54
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(A) ............................................................................ 10
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 136v(c) ...................................................................................... 28
`
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) ................................................................. 5, 9, 10, 16
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(2) ................................................................................. 6
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1) ................................................................................. 5
`
`Pub. L. No. 113-79, 128 Stat. 649 (2014) ................................................... 7
`
`Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490 (2018) ............................................... 8
`
`CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ....................................................................................... 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13 ........................................................................... 6, 16, 17
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a) .................................................................................. 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14 ................................................................................. 6, 17
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) ...................................................................... 5, 16, 17
`
`
`vii
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(B) ............................................................................ 10
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(11) ................................................................................. 8
`
` U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G) ............................................................................ 33
`
` U.S.C. § 136n ......................................................................................... 14
`
` U.S.C. § 136n(b) ..................................................................................... 19
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 9 of 54
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) .............................................................................. 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.46 ................................................................................. 6, 16
`
`FEDERAL REGISTER
`
`85 Fed. Reg. 78,851 (Dec. 7, 2020) ............................................................. 9
`
`OTHER AUTHORITY
`
`D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure. ........... 13, 14, 29
`
`Florida Statute 487-041(2) ....................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 10 of 54
`
`
`
`AgLogic
`
`EPA/Agency
`
`ESA
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Movant-Intervenor AgLogic Chemical, LLC
`
`The United States Environmental
`Protection Agency
`
`The Endangered Species Act
`
`FIFRA
`
`Florida
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.
`
`Florida Department of Agriculture and
`Consumer Services
`
`January 2021 Decision Registration Decision for Uses on Oranges
`and Grapefruit in Florida, Aldicarb, dated
`January 12, 2021
`
`U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
`National Marine Fisheries Service
`
`The Services
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 11 of 54
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
` Respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(“EPA”) hereby moves for remand without vacatur and responds in
`
`opposition to Petitioners’ motion for summary vacatur or, in the
`
`alternative, a stay pending expedited review (“Pet’rs’ Br.”). Petitioners
`
`challenge EPA’s January 2021 decision to approve the conditional
`
`registration of the pesticide aldicarb. In short, Petitioners allege that
`
`EPA failed to adhere to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”)
`
`consultation process when it approved the conditional registration and
`
`amendments at issue. They also allege that EPA’s approval poses
`
`unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, in violation of the
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).
`
`Petitioners are not entitled to the requested remedies.
`
`EPA acknowledges that it did not make an ESA effects
`
`determination prior to conditionally approving the use of aldicarb on
`
`oranges and grapefruit in Florida. Accordingly, EPA respectfully
`
`requests that this Court remand the challenged conditional registration
`
`approval to allow EPA to make an “effects determination,” and take any
`
`additional follow-up actions as appropriate. Granting this request will
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 12 of 54
`
`conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources, as it will allow EPA to
`
`address this issue.
`
`Petitioners have not demonstrated that summary vacatur is
`
`appropriate here as EPA has otherwise complied with its obligations
`
`under FIFRA. Remand without vacatur is the proper course to allow
`
`EPA to make an ESA effects determination. On similar facts, the Court
`
`has done just that. See Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d
`
`174, 188 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (granting remand without vacatur despite
`
`finding a failure to comply with the ESA).
`
`Petitioners have failed to carry their burden as to either summary
`
`vacatur of EPA’s decision or a stay. Petitioners’ motion should be
`
`denied and EPA’s request for remand without vacatur should be
`
`granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Legal Background
`
`1. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act
`
`FIFRA generally precludes the distribution or sale of any pesticide
`
`unless it is “registered” by EPA. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). The registration
`
`process begins through submission of a “statement,” which includes,
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 13 of 54
`
`among other things, the name and complete “formula of the pesticide.”
`
`Id. at § 136a(c)(1). EPA then provides “a notice of each application for
`
`registration of any pesticide if it contains any new active ingredient or if
`
`it would entail a changed use pattern” and allows opportunity for
`
`comments. Id. at § 136a(c)(4).
`
`EPA issues a license, referred to as a “registration,” for each
`
`specific pesticide product allowed to be marketed. Id. at § 136a(a); see
`
`also National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893, 912 (9th
`
`Cir. 2020) (same). “The terms and conditions on the license include
`
`exactly what product can be sold, the specific packaging it must be sold
`
`in, and labeling that contains instructions on proper use.” National
`
`Family Farm, 966 F.3d at 912 (citing 7 U.S.C. § 136(p)). The Act directs
`
`that EPA “shall register a pesticide” if the Agency determines that: (A)
`
`the pesticide’s composition warrants the proposed claims for it; (B) its
`
`labeling complies with FIFRA; (C) it will perform its intended function
`
`without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and (D) when
`
`used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice
`
`it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5).
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 14 of 54
`
`Notwithstanding 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5), EPA may also
`
`conditionally register or amend registration of a pesticide if it
`
`determines, among other things, that the pesticide and proposed use
`
`are “identical or substantially similar to any currently registered
`
`pesticide” and “differ only in ways that would not significantly increase
`
`the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” and
`
`“approving the registration or amendment in the manner proposed by
`
`the applicant would not significantly increase the risk of any
`
`unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7).
`
`Conditional registration may be approved even in the absence of
`
`complete data. Id. In assessing risk, Congress expressly directs EPA to
`
`balance benefits and costs. Thus, “unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment” include “any unreasonable risk to man or the
`
`environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” Id. at
`
`§ 136(bb).
`
`2. Endangered Species Act
`
`Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the
`
`ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 15 of 54
`
`depend may be conserved,” and “to provide a program for the
`
`conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1531(b). ESA section 7 directs each federal agency to insure, in
`
`consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National
`
`Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, the “Services”), that “any action
`
`authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to
`
`jeopardize the continued existence of” any listed species or destroy or
`
`adversely modify designated critical habitat. Id. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`Under section 7, the agency proposing the relevant action
`
`(referred to as the action agency; here EPA) determines based on the
`
`“best information from the Services” whether any listed or proposed-to-
`
`be-listed species “may be present” in the area of the proposed action. 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1). If the answer to this question is affirmative, the
`
`action agency may prepare a biological assessment to determine
`
`whether the identified species “is likely to be affected by such action.”
`
`Id. If the action agency independently determines that the action will
`
`have “no effect” on listed species, the agency has no further obligations
`
`under the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). If, however, the agency
`
`determines that the action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat,
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 16 of 54
`
`the action agency must pursue either informal2 or formal consultation
`
`with one or both of the Services. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13–14. Alternatively,
`
`EPA may initiate consultation on a FIFRA action after making an
`
`effects determination pursuant to optional formal consultation
`
`procedures developed pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.46.
`
`Formal consultation is required unless the action agency
`
`determines, with the Services’ written concurrence, that the proposed
`
`action is “not likely to adversely affect” a listed species or critical
`
`habitat. Id. §§ 402.13(a), 402.14(b)(1). If formal consultation is
`
`required, then one or both of the Services must prepare a biological
`
`opinion stating whether the proposed action is likely to “jeopardize the
`
`continued existence of” any listed species or destroy or adversely modify
`
`designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(2); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14,
`
`402.46.
`
`
`2 The ESA’s implementing regulations recognize the use of “informal
`consultation” to assist an action agency in determining whether and
`when further consultation is necessary. Informal consultation “includes
`all discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Service and the
`Federal agency or the designated non-Federal representative prior to
`formal consultation, if required.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 17 of 54
`
`B. Historical Background
`
`Because of the complexity of making effects determinations and
`
`completing consultations for pesticides, numerous pesticides have been
`
`approved and are available for use that have not undergone ESA
`
`review—namely, without EPA first undertaking an effects
`
`determination or, as appropriate, initiating consultation under the ESA.
`
`See Washington Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005),
`
`abrogation on other grounds recognized by Cottonwood Environmental
`
`Law Center v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015). EPA
`
`has acknowledged that the Agency may have a duty to make an effects
`
`determination and, if required, consult under ESA section 7 prior to
`
`issuing a registration for a pesticide. See id. In recent years, EPA has
`
`worked with the Services to address the backlog and remedy this
`
`complex situation by creating a framework for pesticide consultation.
`
`See Declaration of Jan Matuszko (“Decl.”) ¶ 12, Att. 1 (A5–6). Congress
`
`is aware of this dialogue and has requested that EPA report on
`
`consultation progress and streamline integration of ESA and FIFRA
`
`procedures. Pub. L. No. 113-79, § 10013, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 649,
`
`951 (2014).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 18 of 54
`
`To this end, EPA began several “pilot” biological evaluations as a
`
`first step towards implementing recommendations provided by the
`
`National Academy of Science. See Decl. ¶ 12 (A5–6). Subsequently,
`
`EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Commerce
`
`signed a memorandum of agreement establishing an interagency
`
`working group to include these and other federal agencies tasked with
`
`providing recommendations to the agencies’ leadership on improving
`
`the ESA consultation process for pesticides. See id. The intent of the
`
`interagency working group is to improve the consultation process
`
`required under ESA section 7 for pesticide registration and registration
`
`review. Id. On December 20, 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Act of
`
`2018 (2018 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490) was signed
`
`into law, codifying the interagency working group and the
`
`memorandum of agreement. As required under section 10115 of the
`
`2018 Farm Bill and FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(11), the interagency
`
`working group report was delivered to Congress in December 2019, and
`
`an update was provided in June 2020. Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 19 of 54
`
`C. Procedural History
`
`1. The January 2021 Decision
`
`Aldicarb is a systemic carbamate that is used to control certain
`
`insects, mites, and nematodes. See Registration Decision for the Uses
`
`on Oranges and Grapefruit in Florida, Aldicarb (January 12, 2021),
`
`EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0600-0023, (“January 2021 Decision”) 3, Att. 2
`
`(A17). Since 2011, aldicarb has been registered for use on cotton, dry
`
`beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. Id.
`
`Aldicarb was also previously registered for both citrus and potatoes, but
`
`those uses were voluntarily phased out. Id. In 2019, movant-
`
`Intervenor AgLogic Chemical, LLC (“AgLogic”) sought to register new
`
`uses of aldicarb on oranges and grapefruit in Florida and Texas. Id. 4.
`
`AgLogic later amended its request to use aldicarb on a more limited
`
`basis. Id. EPA published the notice of receipt of the application for a
`
`thirty-day public comment period on December 7, 2020. Id.; see also 85
`
`Fed. Reg. 78,851 (Dec. 7, 2020). As set forth in the Matuszko
`
`Declaration, EPA acknowledges that it has not made an “effects
`
`determination” for these new uses of aldicarb or initiated consultation
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 20 of 54
`
`with the Services, if appropriate, pursuant to the ESA, 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1536(a)(2).
`
`In January 2021, EPA conditionally approved of the use of
`
`aldicarb on oranges and grapefruit in Florida. The approval amended
`
`the registrations of two existing pesticides, under 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136a(c)(7)(B): MEYMIK TECHNICAL (used for formulating into end-
`
`use products) and AGLOGIC 15GG (used by farms). EPA also approved
`
`a new product under 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(A), that will be labelled for
`
`use on only oranges and grapefruit in Florida, to allow EPA to better
`
`monitor compliance. EPA’s approval imposes numerous conditions on
`
`aldicarb’s new use including limitations on time,3 sales and distribution,
`
`application volume and frequency, method of application, and who may
`
`apply the registered products. January 2021 Decision 12–18 (A26–32).
`
`In particular, EPA conditionally approved the use of aldicarb on
`
`oranges and grapefruit in Florida only, with further limitations that the
`
`use would expire after the third application season (April 30, 2023),
`
`
`3 The conditional registration of these uses for AGLOGIC 15GG expires
`on April 30, 2021. The conditional registration of these uses for the
`other two products expires on April 30, 2023. January 2021 Decision 3.
`10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 21 of 54
`
`could not exceed 2,500,000 pounds and 100,000 acres, and would be
`
`applied only during the application season, which runs from November
`
`15 to April 30. Id. The Florida Department of Agriculture (“Florida”)
`
`has not yet approved the registration of aldicarb. See
`
`https://www.fdacs.gov/Business-Services/Pesticide-Licensing/Aldicarb-
`
`Permits (“Despite the EPA registration, Aldicarb is not registered and
`
`approved for use on citrus (oranges and grapefruit) in Florida at this
`
`time”) (last accessed April 19, 2021).4
`
`2. Petition for Review and Procedural History
`
`
`
`In January 2021, EPA approved the 2021 conditional registration
`
`and amendments. Petitioners filed their petition for review challenging
`
`the approval shortly thereafter. On March 26, 2021, Petitioners asked
`
`EPA to administratively stay the registration of aldicarb. Pet’rs’ Br. 1.
`
`On April 2, 2021, Petitioners moved for summary vacatur and,
`
`alternatively, for a stay. ECF No. 1892998. That same day, AgLogic
`
`moved to intervene. ECF No. 1892997. The Court has not ruled on
`
`AgLogic’s motion.
`
`4 In addition to EPA’s approval, a pesticide must be registered by
`Florida to be sold and distributed in state. Florida Statutes
`487.041(1)(a).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 22 of 54
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`This Court should deny Petitioners’ motion for summary vacatur
`
`and instead remand this case without vacatur of the 2021 conditional
`
`registration approval that is challenged here. EPA has satisfied the
`
`standard for voluntary remand. EPA has acknowledged that it did not
`
`make an ESA effects determination, but that the Agency expressly
`
`considered the pesticide’s ecological effects in issuing the registration
`
`under FIFRA and determined that potential ecological effects were not
`
`unreasonable in light of the benefits. Moreover, vacatur would not
`
`necessarily prevent environmental harm and may harm the economic
`
`prospects of citrus farms. Accordingly, because EPA has otherwise met
`
`its obligations under FIFRA and the equities weigh in favor of leaving
`
`the registration in place pending remand, the 2021 conditional
`
`registration approval of aldicarb should be remanded to the Agency
`
`without vacatur. Should the Court deny EPA’s request for remand,
`
`Petitioners’ stay request should also be denied as no factors weigh in
`
`favor of a stay.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 23 of 54
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Voluntary remand of a challenged agency action is proper where
`
`the agency seeks to reconsider its initial action. See generally Ethyl
`
`Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (granting EPA’s
`
`request for voluntary remand to consider new evidence). “The decision
`
`whether to vacate depends on ‘the seriousness of the order’s deficiencies
`
`(and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and
`
`the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be
`
`changed.’ ” Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 988
`
`F.2d 146, 150–51 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting International Union, UMW
`
`v. FMSHA, 920 F.2d 960, 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also Milk Train, Inc.
`
`v. Veneman, 310 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (applying Allied-Signal two-
`
`part test). “Summary reversal is rarely granted and is appropriate only
`
`where the merits are ‘so clear, plenary briefing, oral argument, and the
`
`traditional collegiality of the decisional process would not affect [the
`
`Court’s] decision.’ ” D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice and Internal
`
`Procedures 36 (quoting Sills v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792,
`
`793–94 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 24 of 54
`
`Likewise, a judicial stay of an agency decision is an extraordinary
`
`and disfavored remedy. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if
`
`irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.” Nken v.
`
`Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). “The party requesting a stay bears
`
`the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that
`
`discretion.” Id. at 433–34. When evaluating a stay motion, the Court
`
`considers (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the
`
`applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance
`
`of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
`
`proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken, 556 U.S. at
`
`434; D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33.
`
`
`
`The standard of review that will govern the merits stage applies to
`
`the likelihood-of-success prong. Under 7 U.S.C. § 136n, the Court shall
`
`sustain an order of the Administrator “if it is supported by substantial
`
`evidence when considered on the record as a whole.” Courts must
`
`“affirm the Administrator’s finding where there is such relevant
`
`evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
`
`conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions
`
`from the evidence.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 735
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1895080 Filed: 04/19/2021 Page 25 of 54
`
`F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted