`
`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
`
`