`
`Nos. 19-72109 & 19-72280
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`
`
`
`
`JEAN E. WILLIAMS
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`BRUCE GELBER
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`Meghan E. Greenfield
`Briena Strippoli
`Attorneys
`Environment and Natural Resources
`Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`150 M Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20002
`(202) 514-2795
`Meghan.Greenfield@usdoj.gov
`
`Of Counsel:
`Amber Aranda
`U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 2 of 115
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`GLOSSARY ............................................................................................ viii
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................... 4
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ................................... 4
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act .............................................................. 5
`
`Endangered Species Act ................................................. 7
`
`B. Procedural History ................................................................ 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2013 Registration ......................................................... 11
`
`2016 Registrations and 2019 Registration
`Amendments ................................................................ 12
`
`Record Supporting 2019 Registration
`Amendments ................................................................ 14
`
`Petitions for Review and Procedural History .............. 15
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................ 16
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................... 19
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 20
`
`I.
`
`Remand Is Proper to Allow EPA to Remedy the ESA
`Defect and Further Explain Its FIFRA Rationale......................... 20
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 3 of 115
`
`A. EPA’s acknowledgment of error, along with the
`intervening decision in National Family Farm
`Coalition v. EPA, provides a proper basis to
`remand this action. ............................................................... 20
`
`B. EPA’s remand request is timely and made in good
`faith. ...................................................................................... 23
`
`II. Vacatur of the Registration Amendments Is Not
`Required or Appropriate During the Pendency of the
`Remand. .......................................................................................... 27
`
`A. The ESA error and EPA’s intent to elucidate its
`FIFRA rationale are not such serious deficiencies
`that vacatur is required. ....................................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`EPA took into account ecological impacts in
`the registration amendments, and so the
`ESA error does not weigh heavily in favor of
`vacatur. ......................................................................... 29
`
`There is no serious deficiency in the FIFRA
`analysis. ........................................................................ 34
`
`3. No procedural flaw warrants vacatur. ........................ 36
`
`B. Vacatur of the 2019 registration amendments
`would be inequitable because it would cause
`environmental and economic harm. ..................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`Vacatur could cause environmental harm. ................. 41
`
`a.
`
`The FIFRA record supports the
`conclusion that sulfoxaflor is less toxic
`than the most widely used
`alternatives. ........................................................ 41
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 4 of 115
`
`b.
`
`The claimed errors with the FIFRA
`analysis do not undermine EPA’s
`analysis of the ecological effects of the
`pesticide. .............................................................. 48
`
`2.
`
`Vacatur would cause economic hardship. .................... 57
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 61
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 5 of 115
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .......................... 19, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40
`
`
`ASARCO, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin.,
`746 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................................ 19
`
`
`B.J. Alan Co. v. ICC,
`897 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .............................................................. 21
`
`
`Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ........... 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, 39, 40
`
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................ 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 47
`
`
`Ethyl Corp. v. Browner,
`989 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ........................................................ 20, 21
`
`
`Heartland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius,
`566 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 33
`
`
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt,
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................ 39
`
`
`Lands Council v. McNair,
`537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds by
` Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ..................................................... 35
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................ 20
`
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................ 2, 24, 25, 33, 52
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 6 of 115
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................ 5, 30, 31, 34
`
`
`Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC,
`899 F.2d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ............................................................ 33
`
`
`Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas,
`30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................. 8
`
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ................. 11, 12, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 44, 51
`
`
`SKF USA, Inc. v. United States,
`254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................ 20, 21, 33
`
`
`Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ...................................................... 32, 40
`
`
`United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,
`887 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 19
`
`
`Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA,
`413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by
`Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
` 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 9
`Statutes
`
` U.S.C. § 136(bb) .......................................................................... 6, 25, 26
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 136(l) ....................................................................................... 24
`
` U.S.C. § 136(p) ........................................................................................ 5
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(a) ...................................................................................... 5
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1) .................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`v
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 7 of 115
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4) .............................................. 5, 13, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) ............................................................................ 6, 11
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(11) .............................................................................. 10
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G) ............................................................................. 6
`
` U.S.C. § 136n(b) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) .................................................................................... 7
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536 ........................................................................................ 7
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) .......................................................................... 7, 23
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Pub. L. No. 113-79, § 10013, 128 Stat. 649 (2014) .................................... 9
`
`Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490 (2018) ............................................ 10
`
`Code of Federal Regulations
`
`40 C.F.R. § 152.102 ........................................................................... 35, 38
`
`40 C.F.R. § 158.45(a) ............................................................................... 49
`
`50 C.F.R. pt. 402 ........................................................................................ 7
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.12 ..................................................................................... 8
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13 ............................................................................... 8, 24
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a) ................................................................................. 8
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14 ........................................................................... 7, 8, 24
`
`vi
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 8 of 115
`
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) ............................................................................... 24
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Federal Registers
`
`75 Fed. Reg. 80,490 (Dec. 20, 2010) .................................................. 13, 36
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 22,963 (Apr. 25, 2014) .................................................. 14, 36
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,678 (Oct. 12, 2018) ................................................... 14, 36
`
`Other
`
`Charles H. Koch Jr., Administrative Law & Practice
` § 8:31, at 187 (3d ed. 2010) .................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 9 of 115
`
`
`
`GLOSSARY
`Endangered Species Act ....................................................................... ESA
`
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. EPA
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ...................... FIFRA
`
`U.S. Department of Agriculture ....................................................... USDA
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 10 of 115
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Sulfoxaflor is a highly selective pesticide that targets a range of
`
`piercing and sucking insects. It has become an indispensable form of
`
`pest control for growers as numerous crops have become resistant to
`
`older pesticides. Further, sulfoxaflor is generally less toxic, has lower
`
`application rates and requires fewer applications than many older,
`
`widely used pesticides. It also dissipates quickly in pollen and nectar,
`
`thereby posing less risk to pollinator species than other widely-used
`
`alternatives.
`
`Petitioners here challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection
`
`Agency’s (EPA) 2019 issuance of amendments to the registration of
`
`sulfoxaflor under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
`
`Act (FIFRA).1 One of the consolidated petitions for review also advances
`
`claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EPA recognizes that
`
`the Agency failed to comply with the ESA’s requirement of issuing an
`
`effects determination prior to issuing the 2019 registration amendments
`
`
`1 The actions challenged in this case are amendments to the
`registrations that were first issued in 2019. See July 12, 2019 PRIA
`Label Amendment – Closer SG, PSCER000031; July 12, 2019 PRIA
`Label Amendment – Transform WG, PSCER000111. The earlier
`registrations of sulfoxaflor in 2016 are not at issue in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 11 of 115
`
`for sulfoxaflor. EPA further recognizes that the Agency’s rationale
`
`describing why the amendments satisfy the FIFRA standard could be
`
`more robust, particularly in light of the recent decision in Nat’l Family
`
`Farm Coal. v. EPA, 960 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2020). Accordingly,
`
`EPA respectfully requests that this Court remand the challenged
`
`registration amendments to the Agency to allow EPA to correct the ESA
`
`error and also to provide additional detail on why the FIFRA standard
`
`is satisfied on this record. It is well established that remand is proper in
`
`the circumstances here—namely, where EPA acknowledges a legal
`
`error and also where an intervening court decision requires further
`
`examination by the Agency.
`
`EPA further seeks that the remand be granted without vacatur.
`
`The ESA error may be remedied through further Agency action on
`
`remand, and EPA can—at the same time—provide additional
`
`explanation as to why the registration amendments satisfy the FIFRA
`
`standard. Vacatur would be inequitable because it would render sale
`
`and distribution of sulfoxaflor for the uses permitted in the 2019
`
`amendments unlawful under FIFRA, thereby removing a pesticide with
`
`reduced toxicity from the market and very likely increasing the use of
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 12 of 115
`
`older, generally more toxic alternatives. In fact, increased use of these
`
`alternatives could pose greater risk to the very species that Petitioners
`
`seek to protect as well as to other species and humans. This
`
`environmental harm, along with the clear adverse economic
`
`consequences that would result from vacatur, establishes that remand
`
`without vacatur is proper.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`This court has jurisdiction over the consolidated petitions for
`
`review under 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b), which provides for judicial review in
`
`the courts of appeals “of any order issued by the Administrator
`
`following a public hearing.” The 2019 actions challenged here amend
`
`the 2016 registrations. Decision Mem. Supporting Registration Decision
`
`for New Uses of the Active Ingredient Sulfoxaflor (July 12, 2019) (July
`
`2019 Decision), EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889-0570, 1-PSCER-000001-
`
`000030. EPA issued the 2016 registration amendments after notice and
`
`comment proceedings. See EPA, Registration Decision for Sulfoxaflor for
`
`Use on Agricultural Crops, Ornamentals and Turf (Oct. 14, 2016) (2016
`
`Registration), EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889-0563, 4-PSCER-000687-000697.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 13 of 115
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1. Whether remand of the challenged agency actions is proper where
`
`EPA has acknowledged a legal error under the Endangered
`
`Species Act (ESA), and wishes to provide further explanation for
`
`its actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`
`Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) after an intervening court decision
`
`interpreting the requirements of that statute.
`
`2. Whether the Court should exercise its equitable discretion and
`
`decline to vacate the challenged pesticide registration actions
`
`where EPA can remedy the ESA error and elucidate its FIFRA
`
`rationale on remand, and where vacating the actions could cause
`
`environmental and economic harm by taking a valuable tool away
`
`from farmers and resulting in the use of more toxic pesticides.
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`The pertinent statutes and regulations not included as part of the
`
`Petitioners’ briefs are reproduced in an appendix to this brief.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 14 of 115
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`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,
`
`among other things, the name and complete “formula of the pesticide.”
`
`Id. § 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. § 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 Nat’l Family Farm Coal. 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.” Id. (citing 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136(p)). The Act directs that EPA “shall register a pesticide” if the
`
`Agency determines that:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 15 of 115
`
`(A) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims
`for it;
`
`(B) its labeling and other material required to be submitted
`comply with the requirements of this subchapter;
`
`(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).
`
`To evaluate whether an application to amend an existing
`
`registration should be granted, EPA evaluates whether the requested
`
`amendment, e.g., a proposed use, is likely to cause unreasonable
`
`adverse effects. Relevant here, 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.
`
`§ 136(bb).
`
`It is unlawful to use a pesticide “in a manner inconsistent with its
`
`labeling.” Id. § 136j(a)(2)(G). A pesticide product’s labeling is therefore
`
`integral to EPA’s registration decision and is the primary means of
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 16 of 115
`
`accomplishing FIFRA’s mandate to prevent unreasonable adverse
`
`effects.
`
`2. Endangered Species Act
`Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the
`
`ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species
`
`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).
`
`Section 7 and its implementing regulations delineate a process for
`
`determining the biological impacts of a proposed action known as
`
`section 7 consultation. 16 U.S.C. § 1536; 50 C.F.R. pt. 402. Through this
`
`process, the agency proposing the relevant action (referred to as the
`
`action agency) must determine whether its action “may affect” a listed
`
`species or its designated critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. If the
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 17 of 115
`
`action agency determines that the action will have “no effect” on listed
`
`species or critical habitat, it need not “consult” under section 7. See 50
`
`C.F.R. § 402.12; Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1054 n.8
`
`(9th Cir. 1994). If, however, the agency determines that the action “may
`
`affect” listed species or critical habitat, the action agency must pursue
`
`either informal or formal consultation with one or both of the Services.
`
`50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13-402.14.
`
`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. 50 C.F.R. §§ 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)(3); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14.
`
`B. Historical Background
`FIFRA predates the ESA, and many hundreds of pesticides that
`
`have been approved and are available for use have not undergone ESA
`
`review—namely, without EPA first undertaking an effects
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 18 of 115
`
`determination or, as appropriate, initiating consultation under the ESA.
`
`See Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated
`
`on other grounds by Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`
`789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015). EPA has acknowledged its 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, along with help from the National
`
`Academy of Sciences, to address the backlog and remedy noncompliance
`
`by creating a framework for pesticide consultation. See Jan Matuszko’s
`
`Declaration in Support of Answering Brief (EPA’s Second Decl.), ¶¶ 12-
`
`13.2 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, 128 Stat. 649 (2014).
`
`To this end, EPA began several “pilot” Biological Evaluations
`
`using the methods identified by the National Academy of Sciences as a
`
`
`2 Jan Matuszko’s first declaration was filed in support of EPA’s motion
`to remand. See EPA’s First Decl., Doc. Id. No. 11871851. Ms.
`Matuszko’s second declaration provides an updated assessment of the
`reasonable amount of time EPA projects it will require to make an
`effects determination for sulfoxaflor. See EPA’s Second Decl. ¶ 5.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 19 of 115
`
`first step towards implementing the Academy’s recommendations. See
`
`EPA’s Second Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. In doing so, EPA has been allocating most
`
`resources to the review of older, generally more toxic pesticides, rather
`
`than to the first-time registration of new, generally less toxic
`
`ingredients. See EPA’s Second Decl. ¶¶ 14, 19.
`
`Subsequently, EPA, the Department of the 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 EPA’s Second Decl. ¶ 13. The intent of the interagency
`
`working group is to improve the consultation process 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.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 20 of 115
`
`B. Procedural History
`2013 Registration
`1.
`Sulfoxaflor is an insecticide that targets a broad range of piercing
`
`and sucking insects including aphids, plant bugs, whiteflies,
`
`planthoppers, mealybugs, and scales. July 2019 Decision at 13,
`
`1-PSCER-000013. In 2010, Intervenor Corteva Agriscience LLC
`
`(Corteva)3 submitted registration applications to EPA for three
`
`pesticide products that contain sulfoxaflor as their active ingredient. In
`
`May 2013, EPA granted unconditional registration of these products
`
`under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5), with certain mitigating measures to
`
`protect pollinator species like bees. See EPA, Registration of the New
`
`Active Ingredient Sulfoxaflor for Use on Multiple Commodities,
`
`Turfgrass and Ornamentals (May 2013), 4-PSCER-000757. These
`
`registrations were challenged on FIFRA grounds by a number of
`
`petitioners. See Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA, 806 F.3d 520
`
`(9th Cir. 2015). No party challenged the registrations under the ESA at
`
`
`3 Corteva was formerly known as Dow AgroSciences LLC. For ease of
`reference, the intervenor is referred to as “Corteva” throughout this
`brief.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 21 of 115
`
`that juncture—rather, challenges were solely brought under FIFRA. See
`
`id.
`
`In 2015, the Court granted the petitions for review on the ground
`
`that EPA lacked sufficient data on the impacts of sulfoxaflor on bee
`
`populations. Id. at 531. Because of this, the Court held that EPA’s
`
`decision was not supported by substantial evidence under FIFRA. Id.
`
`The Court then vacated the registration because, on that record,
`
`“leaving the EPA’s registration of sulfoxaflor in place risks more
`
`potential environmental harm than vacating it.” Id. at 532.
`
`2.
`
`2016 Registrations and 2019 Registration
`Amendments
`
`After the vacatur of the registration in 2015, EPA reevaluated the
`
`sulfoxaflor application to take into account the errors identified by the
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council court. In 2016, EPA granted
`
`unconditional registrations of three pesticide products containing
`
`sulfoxaflor for use on specified crops, turf, and ornamentals. See 2016
`
`Decision, 4-PSCER-000687 (discussing issuance of registrations for
`
`Sulfoxaflor Technical (Registration No. 62719-631) and two end use
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 22 of 115
`
`products, Transform WG (Registration No. 62719-625) and Closer SC
`
`(Registration No. 62719-623)). These registrations were not challenged.
`
`Then, in July 2019, EPA granted unconditional amendments
`
`under FIFRA section 3(c)(5) to those same registrations. These
`
`amendments granted the following new uses: alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains
`
`(millet, oats), pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, tree plantations, citrus,
`
`cotton, cucurbits, soybeans, and strawberry. July 2019 Decision,
`
`1-PSCER-000001. Finally, the 2019 actions removed certain restrictions
`
`that were included in the October 2016 registrations. Id.
`
`Applications for each of the uses that were approved in the 2019
`
`registration amendments were publicly noticed under FIFRA section
`
`3(c)(4), 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4). See July 2019 Decision, 1-PSCER-000001
`
`(approving uses on alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains (millet and oats),
`
`pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, tree plantations, citrus, cotton,
`
`cucurbits, soybeans, and strawberry). Specifically, the 2010 notice
`
`advised the public of the application for use on citrus, cotton, cucurbits,
`
`soybeans, and strawberry. Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide
`
`Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various
`
`Commodities, 75 Fed. Reg. 80,490 (Dec. 22, 2010). The 2014 notice
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 23 of 115
`
`advised the public of the application for use on alfalfa, cacao, corn, grain
`
`(millet and oats), pineapple, sorghum, teff, and teosinte. See Pesticide
`
`Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses, 79 Fed.
`
`Reg. 22,963 (Apr. 25, 2014). And, in 2018, a notice advised the public on
`
`the application for use on tree plantations. See Pesticide Product
`
`Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,678
`
`(Oct. 12, 2018). Each of these notices provided an opportunity for public
`
`comment.
`
`3. Record Supporting 2019 Registration
`Amendments
`
`As part of the 2019 registration amendment decisions, EPA
`
`prepared an assessment of the ecological risks from the proposed
`
`amendments to the registrations. See Sulfoxaflor: Ecological Risk
`
`Assessment for Section 3 Registration for Various Proposed New Uses
`
`(July 10, 2019) (Risk Assessment), EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889-0566,
`
`3-PSCER-000354. EPA also considered the impacts to pollinators based
`
`on existing and newly submitted data. See July 2019 Decision at 7-9,
`
`1-PSCER-000007-000009. Finally, EPA prepared a benefits analysis of
`
`the amendments to help determine whether the proposed uses of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 24 of 115
`
`pesticide pose unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and
`
`concluded that they did not. See Benefits for New Uses of Sulfoxaflor on
`
`Alfalfa, Avocado, Citrus, Corn, Cotton, Cucurbits, Fruiting Vegetables,
`
`Pineapple, Pome Fruit (Pre-bloom), Rice, Sorghum, Soybean,
`
`Strawberry, Ornamental and Home Fruit Trees (Mar. 7, 2019) (Benefits
`
`Assessment), EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889-0569, PSCER000641-000686;
`
`July 2019 Decision at 1-22, 1-PSCER-000010-000022 (discussing
`
`findings). In short, EPA concluded that sulfoxaflor provides numerous
`
`benefits against hard to control pests and is less acutely toxic generally,
`
`including to beneficial insects like honeybees, than the most widely
`
`used alternatives. See id.
`
`4. Petitions for Review and Procedural
`History
`
`
`
`Shortly after the 2019 amendments were issued, the petitioners
`
`filed petitions for review challenging these amendments. Petitioners
`
`Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety challenged
`
`the registration amendments on ESA and FIFRA grounds. See Pet. for
`
`Review, Case No. 19-72109, Doc. Id. No. 11403618. Petitioners
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Beekeeping Federation, and
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 25 of 115
`
`Jeffrey Andersen challenged the actions on FIFRA grounds alone. See
`
`Pet. for Review, Case No. 19-72280, Doc. Id. No. 11423191. The
`
`petitions for review have been consolidated. See Nov. 4, 2019 Order,
`
`Doc. Id. No. 11487539. The registrant, Corteva, intervened in support of
`
`EPA. See Oct. 3, 2019 Order, Doc. Id. No. 11453342.
`
`
`
`In October of 2020, EPA filed a motion for remand of the
`
`registration amendments without vacatur. Mot. to Remand, Doc. Id. No.
`
`11871851. EPA explained that it did not comply with the ESA’s
`
`requirements before issuing the registration amendments. Id. at 11-12.
`
`EPA further argued that remand without vacatur was proper because
`
`EPA could correct the legal error on remand, and vacatur of the
`
`amendments could cause adverse environmental and economic
`
`consequences. Id. at 15-21. Petitioners opposed EPA’s motion. Id. at 2.
`
`The Court denied EPA’s motion on January 12, 2021 and ordered
`
`merits briefing. Doc. Id. No. 11960653.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`This Court should grant remand without vacatur of the 2019
`
`registration amendments that are challenged here. As a threshold
`
`matter, EPA easily satisfies the standard for voluntary remand. The
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-72109, 04/15/2021, ID: 12074930, DktEntry: 87, Page 26 of 115
`
`Agency has acknowledged a legal error—namely, that it must make an
`
`effects determination and take other action as appropriate under the
`
`ESA. EPA further r