throbber
USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 1 of 19
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 21-1079
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`) ) ) )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF
`FLORIDA, ENVIRONMENTAL
`WORKING GROUP, and CENTER FOR
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY,
` Respondent,
`
`AGLOGIC CHEMICAL, LLC.,
` Intervenor-Respondent.
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY VACATUR AND MOTION
`FOR STAY PENDING EXPEDITED REVIEW
`________________________________________________
`
`JONATHAN EVANS
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 844-7118
`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 #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 2 of 19
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL STATEMENT .................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2
`
` EPA’s Admittedly Illegal Activity Approving This Highly Toxic Pesticide
`Warrants Summary Vacatur. ............................................................................. 2
`
` EPA’s Orders Must Be Stayed to Prevent Potential Sales and Use of
`Pesticides Sold. ................................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits. .......................................................... 6
`
`B. Irreparable Harm. ......................................................................................... 9
`
`C. Public Interest and the Balance of Equities. ..............................................11
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 3 of 19
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Allied Signal Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell,
`480 U.S. 531 (1987) ..............................................................................................11
`
`Cannon v. District of Columbia,
`717 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Cascade Broad. Grp., Ltd. v. FCC,
`822 F.2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review,
`No. 20-cv-03812, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8954 (D.D.C. 2021). ............................ 6
`
`Center for Auto Safety v. Peck,
`751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir 2017) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers,
`321 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................10
`
`League of Women Voters of the United States v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................12
`
`Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. E.P.A.,
` 787 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 4 of 19
`
`Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs,
`985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 4
`
`TVA v. Hill,
`437 U.S. 153 (1978) ..............................................................................................11
`
`Rules
`
`D.C. Cir. R. 27(d) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 27(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`EPA, Agreement to Terminate All Uses of Aldicarb (October 2010)
`https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/aldicarb_fs.html ......... 7
`
`EPA, Bayer Agrees to Terminate All Uses of Aldicarb (August, 17, 2010),
`https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/29f9dddede97
`caa88525778200590c93.html ................................................................................. 8
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, Case No. 19-70115,
`EPA’s Proposed Response to Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief (ECF No.
`11703065), Dkt. No 121 at 2-3 (filed May 21, 2020) ............................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 5 of 19
`
`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
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 6 of 19
`
`PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Petitioners submit this brief in Reply to Intervenor-Respondent AgLogic
`
`Chemical, LLC’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Vacatur and Stay
`
`(ECF No. 1895173) (“AgLogic Opp’n.”). Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(4), 27(d)(2).
`
`Petitioners’ Combined Opposition to Respondent Environmental Protection
`
`Agency’s (“EPA”) Motion for Remand Without Vacatur and Reply in Support of
`
`Motion for Summary Vacatur and Stay (ECF No. 1895080) (“EPA Opp’n.”) will
`
`be filed separately. D.C. Cir. R. 27(d).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`EPA admits that it illegally registered aldicarb on citrus and that it will allow
`
`this illegal registration to continue until it expires in 2023. EPA’s violation of the
`
`Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is so clear that this Court should summarily
`
`vacate EPA’s registrations, which pose significant threat to the environment and
`
`public health. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
`
`(“Florida Department of Agriculture”) denied the use of aldicarb because of EPA’s
`
`legal violation and aldicarb’s grave risk to public health and environmental. EPA’s
`
`serious and ongoing violations of the ESA require this Court to provide regulatory
`
`clarity, and prevent environmental harm, through summary vacatur.
`
`Should this Court decline to vacate the aldicarb registrations a stay is
`
`necessary because AgLogic informed this Court that it intends to challenge denial
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 7 of 19
`
`of aldicarb on citrus by the Florida Department of Agriculture, which could result
`
`in use prior to a decision by this Court in normal course. Moreover, EPA takes the
`
`position that it cannot, and will not, halt the use of pesticides that are vacated by
`
`the courts if they have already been sold. Preventing sales is crucial to prevent
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`It is clear Petitioners succeed on the merits because of EPA’s admission of
`
`its illegal activity. Absent a stay aldicarb use would result in pollution of
`
`groundwater and the environment that cannot easily be remediated, poison ESA
`
`protected species, and lead to harm of Petitioners’ members. The balance of
`
`equities and public interest weigh greatly in favor of protecting endangered species
`
`and preventing the EPA from ongoing violations of the law.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
` EPA’s Admittedly Illegal Activity Approving This Highly Toxic
`Pesticide Warrants Summary Vacatur.
`
`
`
`While summary reversal is rarely granted, EPA’s admission that it violated
`
`the law in approving this extremely hazardous pesticide, which EPA previously
`
`recognized has unacceptable dietary risks from food consumption alone, is so clear
`
`that Petitioners meet the heavy burden of summary disposition in this case.
`
`Cascade Broad. Grp., Ltd. v. FCC, 822 F.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
`
`(summary disposition appropriate where action on agency decision was so clear
`
`traditional decision process would not affect decision).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 8 of 19
`
`EPA admits that “it has not made an ‘effects determination’ for aldicarb or
`
`initiated consultation” in violation of the ESA and this Court’s precedent. EPA
`
`Opp’n. 16. EPA then admits that it will not comply with the ESA for at least three
`
`to six years and has no schedule for addressing aldicarb—the admitted ESA
`
`violation here. Id. at 17; EPA_A121 (EPA would “begin the ESA assessment of
`
`aldicarb…after it completes a series of other ESA related actions” spanning to
`
`2027). This admitted and ongoing violation of the law in an “unprecedented” rush
`
`to approve aldicarb in four business days before the end of the last administration
`
`warrants summary vacatur. FWAF_A001605.
`
`The severity of the risk also warrants a summary reversal. As the Florida
`
`Agriculture Commissioner recognized in her April 21, 2021, denial of use on citrus
`
`“aldicarb poses an unacceptable risk to human, animal, and environmental health
`
`in Florida, is one of the world’s most toxic pesticides, and is banned in more than
`
`100 countries.” FWAF_A001636. Aldicarb received the highest hazard designation
`
`by the World Health Organization as “extremely hazardous”, is banned in over 100
`
`countries, and poses “unacceptable dietary risks, especially to infants and young
`
`children.” FWAF_A001636.
`
`
`1 Citation to EPA’s Appendix begins EPA_[bates#]. Citation to Petitioners’
`attachments begins FWAF_[bates#].
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 9 of 19
`
`As explained in Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Vacatur; Motion for Stay
`
`Pending Expedited Review (ECF No. 1892998) (“Pet’rs.’ Mot.”), the well-
`
`recognized high risk of aldicarb is in sharp contrast to Center for Biological
`
`Diversity v. EPA, where this Court found EPA’s violation of the ESA could be
`
`cured on remand without vacatur for “reduced risk” pesticides that could have less
`
`harm than other pesticides. 861 F.3d 174, 188-89 (D.C. Cir 2017); Pet’rs.’ Mot.
`
`17-18. The presumptive remedy of vacatur should apply here. Standing Rock Sioux
`
`Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 985 F.3d 1032, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
`
`(“unsupported agency action normally warrants vacatur”).
`
`Furthermore, Petitioners describe in their opposition to EPA’s motion for
`
`remand without vacatur why 1) the seriousness of EPA’s illegal actions and 2) the
`
`disruptive consequences of remanding without vacatur should lead this Court to
`
`vacate EPA’s registration of aldicarb on citrus. Allied Signal Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear
`
`Regul. Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-151 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
`
` EPA’s Orders Must Be Stayed to Prevent Potential Sales and Use of
`Pesticides Sold.
`
`Should the Court decline to grant summary vacatur it should stay EPA’s
`
`registration of aldicarb on citrus until it can issue a decision in normal course. A
`
`stay is necessary because AgLogic intends to challenge the denial of aldicarb’s use
`
`on citrus by the Florida Department of Agriculture, which could result in sales and
`
`then application of the existing stocks sold. EPA’s actions in the past have
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 10 of 19
`
`demonstrated that once pesticide sales occur EPA does not put the genie back in
`
`the bottle and allows use despite its illegal actions and court orders.
`
`A stay is still necessary to avoid irreparable harm because, despite the denial
`
`of use of aldicarb on citrus by the Florida Department of Agriculture, “AgLogic
`
`intends to challenge that decision” as it informed this Court in filing the denial
`
`decision. ECF No. 1895622 at 1. Should AgLogic’s hearing result in registration in
`
`Florida, the aldicarb products may immediately be sold for use on citrus in Florida.
`
`Even though use cannot occur until November 15, 2021; the sale of the products
`
`must be stayed to avoid irreparable harm.
`
`Once registered products are sold on the market, EPA allows the use of
`
`“existing stocks” even after a court vacates those registrations. For example, the
`
`Ninth Circuit vacated EPA’s registration of pesticide products containing dicamba.
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020). Five days later,
`
`EPA issued a “cancellation” order, allowing the use of the products that had
`
`already been sold through the remainder of the season, despite the Ninth Circuit’s
`
`vacatur of dicamba products. FWAF_A001643.2 EPA alleges that the Federal
`
`Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) “does not bar the use of
`
`
`2 “This cancellation order provides for the disposition of existing stocks… already
`in the possession of persons other than the registrant at the time of the order on
`June 3, 2020, and existing stocks in the possession of the registrant as of the time
`of the order on June 3, 2020.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 11 of 19
`
`unregistered pesticides, such as existing stocks of a cancelled pesticide”. Nat’l
`
`Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, Case No. No. 19-70115, ECF No. 11703065, Dkt. No
`
`121 at 1-2 (filed May 21, 2020) (emphasis in original). Without a stay or vacatur of
`
`EPA’s registration order of aldicarb on citrus prior to sales, EPA could again
`
`attempt an end run around court orders to allow use once aldicarb products are
`
`sold. Even if this Court vacates before November 15, EPA could allow the use of
`
`any products sold prior to vacatur. This will result in the same irreparable harms
`
`previously described. This Court must vacate and stay.
`
`A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
`
`Petitioners have made a clear showing of success on the merits because EPA
`
`
`
`admitted to this Court it is in violation of the ESA. EPA’s Opp’n. 16. Spurious
`
`claims by EPA and AgLogic that Petitioners are not likely to succeed because of
`
`arguments against vacatur find no support in the law and must be rejected.
`
`AgLogic Opp’n. 16; EPA Opp’n. 40. Moreover, Petitioners need only show likely
`
`success on one claim to justify a stay. Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v.
`
`Exec. Office for Immigration Review, No. 20-cv-03812, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`8954, *43 (D.D.C. 2021).
`
`With respect to FIFRA, EPA’s registrations of aldicarb are not supported by
`
`substantial evidence. Any deference EPA is due is highly dependent on whether
`
`relevant evidence in the record provides support. AgLogic Opp’n. 17. Courts must
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 12 of 19
`
`still subject EPA’s decision to searching and careful judicial scrutiny. Center for
`
`Auto Safety v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The “mere fact that an
`
`agency is operating in its field of expertise” does not excuse courts from
`
`performing this “in-depth review.” Id. The substantial evidence standard affords
`
`EPA “less deference than the arbitrary and capricious standard.” Pollinator
`
`Stewardship Council v. EPA, 806 F.3d 520, 533 (9th Cir. 2015) (J. Smith, N.R.,
`
`concurring) (citations omitted). Petitioners are likely to prevail on their FIFRA
`
`claims.
`
`First, AgLogic cannot rewrite history. In 2010, Bayer agreed to immediately
`
`cancel use on citrus because EPA’s August 2010 risk assessment concluded
`
`aldicarb couldn’t meet food safety standards from food consumption alone.
`
`FWAF_A001471; FWAF_A000647-711.3 Thus, EPA’s August 2010 assessment is
`
`not “questionable,” and Bayer’s earlier assessment is not determinative. AgLogic
`
`Opp’n. 2-3, 12. “To address the most significant risks,” Bayer agreed to end use of
`
`
`3 See also EPA, Agreement to Terminate All Uses of Aldicarb (October 2010)
`https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/aldicarb_fs.html (EPA
`initiated the action to terminate uses of aldicarb to “ensure the U.S. has the safest
`food supply possible,” and took “prompt action to end aldicarb use.”). Courts may
`take judicial notice of government information posted on a government agency
`website. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Cannon v. District of Columbia, 717 F.3d 200,
`205 n. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (judicial notice of District of Columbia’s Retirement
`Board website page summarizing pension fund operations).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 13 of 19
`
`aldicarb on citrus and potatoes first.4 In 2018, EPA refused to register use on citrus
`
`because it could not make a safety finding, not simply on “procedural grounds.”
`
`FWAF_A001471; AgLogic Opp’n. 17. This is clear evidence that aldicarb use on
`
`citrus was canceled and EPA refused to register it again in 2018 because it is not
`
`safe, calling into question EPA’s 2021 registration decisions.
`
`AgLogic’s remaining arguments fail. The 48X “safety factor” is the same
`
`safety factor EPA applied in 2010 when it determined aldicarb use on citrus is not
`
`safe. FWAF_A000659; AGLogic Opp’n. 17-18. Moreover, a 48X safety factor is
`
`not “conservative;” EPA often applies 100X or even 1000X to protect children.
`
`FWAF_A001609-10. Petitioners already demonstrated that the 3-inch burial is not
`
`reliable for the fine line between EPA’s “concern” and a safety finding in 2021.
`
`Petrs’ Mot. 22-23, 25. Limiting aldicarb to 100,000 acres will make no difference
`
`to a toddler eating oranges grown on aldicarb-treated acreage, demonstrating the
`
`faulty nature of EPA’s use of averages and percent treated “data” to paint a picture
`
`of lower risk to children. Nor are the well setbacks sufficient. AgLogic has no
`
`response to the fact that EPA cut in half the lateral flow rate and that full
`
`incorporation of granules is “non-achievable” for application to trees. Petrs’ Mot.
`
`25. Finally, purported benefits to growers, especially when there are “good”
`
`
`4 EPA, Bayer Agrees to Terminate All Uses of Aldicarb (August, 17, 2010),
`https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/29f9dddede97ca
`a88525778200590c93.html
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 14 of 19
`
`alternatives, cannot outweigh the risks to children, farmworkers, and Floridians.
`
`FWAF_A000141-145; infra 11-12
`
`B.
`
`Irreparable Harm.
`
`This Court has repeatedly affirmed that environmental injury from pollution
`
`
`
`constitutes irreparable harm. Pet’rs. Mot 27-28. Attempts by AgLogic to minimize
`
`this harm by citing to non-environmental cases fail to recognize this important
`
`distinction. AgLogic Opp’n. 20, citing e.g. Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v.
`
`E.P.A., 787 F.3d 544, 555 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussing higher standard for
`
`economic harm). There is no legitimate dispute that aldicarb poses a grave
`
`environmental and public health risk that is beyond remediation.
`
`The Florida Department of Agriculture emphasized the irreparable harm
`
`from aldicarb use on citrus because “aldicarb poses an unacceptable risk to human,
`
`animal, and environmental health in Florida.” FWAF_A001636. The Florida
`
`Department of Agriculture and EPA have both recognized that aldicarb “may pose
`
`unacceptable dietary risks, especially to infants and young children.”
`
`FWAF_A001637 (citing 2010 EPA risk assessment to phase out aldicarb).
`
`Aldicarb still contaminates groundwater in Long Island 40 years after it was
`
`banned there and has caused widespread groundwater contamination in Florida at
`
`levels high enough to be of environmental and public health concern. Pet’rs’ Mot.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 15 of 19
`
`24. These risks are more acute for agricultural and farmworker communities that
`
`rely on well water supplies near agricultural fields.
`
`EPA and AgLogic claim that a stay is unnecessary because the next
`
`application season doesn’t begin until November and the Florida Department of
`
`Agriculture denied the application. EPA Opp’n. 41; ECF No. 1895622 at 1. These
`
`claims are belied by EPA’s position that it can allow the use of vacated products.
`
`Supra at 5-6. Should denial by the Florida Department of Agriculture be
`
`overturned, EPA would again allow the use of a vacated pesticide despite this
`
`Court’s decision.
`
`EPA further alleges that Petitioners must show harm at the “species level” to
`
`ESA protected wildlife for a stay. EPA Opp’n. 41 (citing to a 1st Circuit ESA case
`
`and National Environmental Policy Act case involving non-ESA species). But this
`
`argument has not been adopted by courts in this Circuit and been rejected by other
`
`Circuits. Pet’rs’ Mot. 30-31; Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250,
`
`1257 (10th Cir. 2003) (Agreeing that a preliminary injunction “seeking to prevent
`
`harm to members of a threatened or endangered species, need not show harm to the
`
`species as a whole.”) Neither EPA nor AgLogic rebut the irreparable harm to
`
`Petitioners’ members. Pet’rs’ Mot 32-33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 16 of 19
`
`C.
`
`Public Interest and the Balance of Equities.
`
`The ESA constrains the Court’s equitable discretion in determining whether
`
`injunctive relief is warranted in favor of threatened and endangered species. Amoco
`
`Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 543 n. 9 (1987) (explaining that the
`
`ESA "foreclose[s] the traditional discretion possessed by an equity court"). TVA v.
`
`Hill held that courts do not have discretion to balance the parties’ competing
`
`interests in ESA cases because Congress “afford[ed] first priority to the declared
`
`national policy of saving endangered species.” TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185
`
`(1978). Congress established an unparalleled public interest in the “incalculable”
`
`value of preserving endangered species. Id. at 187-88.
`
`AgLogic claims that aldicarb would “provide critical relief to the Florida
`
`citrus industry”, emphasizing the threat of citrus greening. AgLogic Opp’n. 21, 2-
`
`4.5 However, as EPA recognized there “are approximately 30 active ingredients
`
`registered for use on grapefruit and oranges in Florida” that manage citrus pests
`
`and aldicarb has declining potential to control pests of concern. FWAF_A000141-
`
`145. The Florida Department of Agriculture similarly emphasized the importance
`
`of “recent breakthroughs” in genetic resistance and commitments of tens of
`
`
`5 AgLogic cites to the Puech declaration, to support factual claims regarding citrus
`greening and aldicarb, which has not been filed with the Court.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 17 of 19
`
`millions of dollars to “to support Florida citrus production, health, and research.”
`
`FWAF_A001636, FWAF_A001639.
`
`“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency
`
`action” such as EPA’s ongoing violation of the ESA. League of Women Voters of
`
`the United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation and internal
`
`quotations omitted).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`EPA’s admission that it violated the ESA in reversing course to approve this
`
`acutely toxic pesticide, which it had repeatedly disapproved, meets the high
`
`standard for summary vacatur. Should the Court decline summary disposition, then
`
`a stay is necessary to prevent potential sales and use of aldicarb until this Court
`
`rules on the matter.
`
`
`
`
`April 26, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 18 of 19
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-1079 Document #1896065 Filed: 04/26/2021 Page 19 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that the forgoing motion was printed in a proportionally
`
`spaced font of 14 points and that, according to the word-count program
`
`in Microsoft Word, it contains 2,594 words in compliance with D.C. Circuit Rule
`
`18(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(d)(2).
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 26th day of April, 2021, I served
`
`the foregoing Petitioners’ Reply to Intervenor-Respondent’s Opposition to Motion
`
`for Summary Vacatur and Motion for Stay Pending Expedited Review and
`
`Attachments to Petitioners’ Reply To Intervenor Respondent AgLogic’s
`
`Opposition to Motion for Summary Vacatur And Stay, on all parties through the
`
`Court’s electronic filing (ECF) system and by email.
`
`DATED: April 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jonathan Evans
`Jonathan Evans
`
`
`
`14
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket