throbber
Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 1 of 154
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`Case Nos. 19-72109, 19-72280
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`JANE NISHIDA, et al.,
`Respondents,
`and
`DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,
`Respondent-Intervenor.
`
`
`
`POLLINATOR STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`JANE NISHIDA, et al.,
`Respondents,
`and
`DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC,
`Intervenor.
`ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY ET AL. PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`(REDACTED)
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
`George A. Kimbrell
`Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu
`Amy van Saun
`2009 NE Alberta St., Suite 207
`Portland, OR 97211
`T: (971) 271-7372
`gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY
`Stephanie M. Parent
`PO Box 11374
`Portland, OR 97211
`T: (971) 717-6404
`SParent@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Center for Food Safety,
`et al.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 2 of 154
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Again Deny EPA’s Request for Remand. ................ 3
`
`Respondents Have Failed to Meet Their Heavy Burden to Show
`that This Is the Rare Case Where the Default Remedy of
`Vacatur Is Not Warranted. ..................................................................... 7
`
`The Seriousness of the Legal Violations Weighs Heavily in
`the Vacatur Calculus. ................................................................... 8
`
`EPA’s Admission It Violated the ESA Is Not Just
`Serious, It Is Egregious. ................................................... 10
`
`EPA Violated FIFRA and Its Analysis Cannot Be
`Rectified with Mere Additional Explanation. ................. 13
`
`EPA Failed to Show that Sulfoxaflor is Safe for
`Non-Honey Bees. ............................................................. 22
`
`Vacatur Is the Appropriate Remedy for EPA’s
`Procedural Violations. ..................................................... 24
`
`EPA Fails to Show Disruptive Consequences to Overcome
`Vacatur. ...................................................................................... 29
`
`Respondents Fail to Show Environmental Harm
`from Vacatur. ................................................................... 29
`
`Contrary to Respondents’ Claims, Vacatur Would
`Not Result in Economic Disruption. .............................. 34
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 36
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 3 of 154
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`All. for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv.
`907 F.3d (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK
`480 U.S. 531 (1987) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`Coal. to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. U.S. Army Corps. of Eng’rs
`466 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (W.D. Wash. 2020) ............................................................ 29
`
`Cottonwood Env’t Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.
` 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 12, 13, 34
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................................ 10, 11, 12, 32
`
`Forest Guardians v. Johanns
`450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 25
`
`Heartland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius
`566 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 24
`
`Hiivala v. Wood
`F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 3
`
`Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Locke
`626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n. v. Babbitt
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................. 7
`
`Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv.
`681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) .............................................................. 10
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) .............................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 4 of 154
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA
`676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................... 25
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jewell
`749 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Wheeler
`955 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 24
`
`Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.
`524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 36
`
`National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ passim
`
`National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA
`966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. 8
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA
`806 F.3d 520, 532-33 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................. passim
`
`Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs
`985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ............................................................ 9, 24, 26, 27
`
`Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill
`437, U.S. 153 (1978) ................................................................................. 10, 33, 36
`
`Thomas v. Peterson
`753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................... 26, 27
`
`Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
`632 F.3d 472(9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 9
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136a(g) ..................................................................................................... 18
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136p ......................................................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 5 of 154
`
`
`
`Federal Statutes (Cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1532(20) ................................................................................................. 33
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1532(8) ................................................................................................... 33
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) ............................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`EPA, Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program
`https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/conventional-reduced-risk-pesticide-
`program#:~:text=OP)%20Alternative%20Status-
`,What%20is%20the%20Conventional%20Reduced%20Risk%20Pesticide%20Pr
`ogram%3F,environment%20than%20existing%20conventional%20alternatives
` ............................................................................................................................... 12
`
`EPA, Final Registration Decision for the New Active Ingredient Inpyrfluxam (Aug. 27,
`2020)
`https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038-0040 ........... 19
`
`EPA, Registration Review Schedules
`https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules ......... 18
`
`EPA, Response to Public Comments on EPA’s Registration of the New Active Ingredient
`Inpyrfluxam (Aug. 25, 2020)
`https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038-0039 ....... 19
`
`EPA, Sulfoxaflor Final Cancellation Order (Nov. 12, 2015)
`https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
`11/documents/final_cancellation_order-sulfoxaflor.pdf ...................................... 35
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 6 of 154
`
`
`
`Other Authorities (Cont'd)
`
`Page(s)
`
`EPA, Testing Guideline 850.3030 – Honey Bee Toxicity of Residue on Foliage (June 2012)
`https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0017 ......... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 7 of 154
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`More than a decade after Intervenor Corteva (formerly Dow)’s initial
`
`application to register sulfoxaflor in 2010, EPA admitted to the Court last year that
`
`it has remained in continuous violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), in all
`
`that time still failing to undertake any effort at analyzing and accounting for
`
`sulfoxaflor’s effects on the nation’s threatened and endangered species. Now, EPA
`
`further admits that its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
`
`decision is also legally deficient. And these are serious deficiencies: EPA issued the
`
`2019 sulfoxaflor use approvals (the 2019 Registration) without following FIFRA’s
`
`core notice and comment procedure, without the necessary data to support its
`
`conclusion that sulfoxaflor use would be safer for honey bees and other pollinators
`
`than existing pesticides, and despite data demonstrating that sulfoxaflor threatens
`
`the health of wild (non-honey) bees.
`
`Despite a motions panel of this Court having already rejected its same
`
`arguments, EPA obstinately asks once again for this Court to remand but not vacate
`
`the 2019 Registration. And despite EPA’s admitted violations, EPA and Corteva
`
`(collectively Respondents) request the Court bless sulfoxaflor uses across U.S.
`
`agriculture—including the insecticide’s concomitant harm to bees and many
`
`pollinators, as well as its risks to myriad ESA-protected insects, birds, mammals, fish,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 8 of 154
`
`
`
`bats, reptiles, and frogs and the designated critical habitat upon which their
`
`existence depend—to go on indefinitely.
`
`Notably, EPA seeks remand not so it may rectify its serious violations of law
`
`by immediately entering into formal consultation with the expert wildlife agencies
`
`under the ESA and analyzing additional data and/or seeking public comments
`
`under FIFRA. Rather, EPA seeks remand only so that EPA may belatedly comply
`
`with its initial ESA duty, one that it has neglected since 2010, and only so that it can
`
`make its FIFRA registration explanatory rationale “more detailed.” EPA does not
`
`even promise that it will issue a new registration decision subject to further review,
`
`let alone commit to any timeline for completing its ESA and FIFRA assessments.
`
`The Court should reject EPA’s open-ended request to evade judicial review
`
`and instead grant these consolidated petitions for review, hold that EPA violated
`
`FIFRA and the ESA, and vacate the 2019 Registration. Indeed, the decision to
`
`vacate here should be easier than most remedy decisions. Unlike a brand-new
`
`scenario, this Court has already answered this exact question: just 5 years ago, in
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA (Pollinator I), this Court vacated the prior
`
`registration. 806 F.3d 520, 532-33 (9th Cir. 2015). And the answer now is even
`
`more straightforward and compelled. Then, the Court found a single, crucial-but-
`
`specific violation of FIFRA; now, there are multiple FIFRA violations and an
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 9 of 154
`
`
`
`admitted ESA violation. Then, the risks at issue were to the precarious nature of bees,
`
`one species; now, the risks are both to still-precarious, not-yet-endangered bees, but
`
`also ESA-protected species already on the brink of extinction. These grave risks
`
`demand that the Court vacate the 2019 Registration.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Earlier this year, the Court’s assigned motions panel rejected EPA’s same
`
`arguments for voluntary remand without vacatur of the challenged 2019
`
`Registration. See Order (Jan. 12, 2021), ECF No. 67. EPA fares no better in its
`
`second bite at the apple here and the result should be the same.1 EPA still failed to
`
`justify its failure to comply with its ESA duties, and worse, now admits that its
`
`FIFRA analysis is also deficient. The Court should proceed to address the merits of
`
`these consolidated petitions for review.
`
`First, as to the ESA, EPA still has no explanation for its exceptionally tardy
`
`admission of its ESA violation, other than pulling a new timeframe out of a hat,
`
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining
`that while the ‘law of the case’ doctrine does not outright bar reconsideration,
`generally a “merits panel does not lightly overturn a decision made by a motions
`panel during the course of the same appeal”) (internal quotation marks and citation
`omitted).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 10 of 154
`
`
`
`now claiming that it could start the initial step for sulfoxaflor—making the “may
`
`effect” determination—as early as this summer, and that it “could” complete that
`
`determination by Spring 2022. EPA’s Br. 24-26 (citing EPA’s First Decl. ¶ 26; EPA’s
`
`Second Decl. ¶ 24), ECF No. 90; 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). EPA’s new timeline is
`
`disingenuous and contradicted by its prior position: the agency does not reconcile
`
`what, if anything, has changed since its prior remand motion last October such that
`
`it is now able to drastically move up its ESA assessment for sulfoxaflor—ahead of the
`
`numerous legally-mandated ESA deadlines for other pesticides from previous
`
`settlement agreements—deadlines that EPA previously claimed barred its ESA
`
`compliance for sulfoxaflor in the first instance. See EPA’s Mot. Remand 15, ECF
`
`No. 51-1.
`
`Moreover, all EPA has now offered is that it could initiate only the very first
`
`step of its ESA assessment process sooner, without any commitment to when EPA
`
`would complete the entire ESA consultation process. EPA acknowledges that, should
`
`it determine that sulfoxaflor “may affect” any ESA-protected species,2 the agency
`
`
`
`2 And make no mistake, this is a determination that EPA will likely reach.
`EPA so determined back in 2013 in its ecological risk assessment of the original
`2010 sulfoxaflor application, finding “potential direct effects” to different categories
`of ESA-protected species, including birds, mammals, terrestrial reptiles, terrestrial
`amphibians, terrestrial insects, and aquatic invertebrates. 4-PSCER-880.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 11 of 154
`
`
`
`would be required to consult with the expert wildlife agencies. See EPA’s Br. 24; 50
`
`C.F.R. § 402.14(a)-(b). In short, EPA offers nothing besides stating its belief that it
`
`could complete the very first step of its ESA analysis by Spring 2022, and could
`
`begin any necessary consultation with the expert wildlife agencies after that, with no
`
`end date in sight. EPA’s Second Decl. ¶ 24.
`
`Second, as to FIFRA, there is even more reason to reject EPA’s request for
`
`remand since EPA has changed its tune from its remand motion, now admitting
`
`that its FIFRA analysis is legally deficient. EPA’s Br. 26 n.4 (admitting that in its
`
`prior motion, EPA had “maintained that the FIFRA analysis was supported by
`
`substantial evidence,” but that “[t]he Agency has since undertaken a more searching
`
`review of the record and now recognizes that additional explanation is proper ….”).3
`
`Again, EPA provides no timeline for revisiting its deficient analysis. Nor does EPA
`
`commit to making a new decision, if there is no vacatur, thereby possibly avoiding
`
`judicial review of its FIFRA violations altogether.
`
`
`
`3 EPA claims this sudden new realization was caused by this Court’s decision
`in National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020), which was
`issued in June of last year. As a major pesticide decision of this Court in which EPA
`was the respondent, it strains credulity to believe EPA was not already well-aware of
`that decision when it filed its motion for remand in late October 2020.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 12 of 154
`
`
`
`Furthermore, EPA’s reassessment under FIFRA will not address CFS
`
`Petitioners’ specific claims that (1) EPA’s hazard comparison of sulfoxaflor to other
`
`pesticides was based on insufficient data, and (2) EPA failed to account for
`
`sulfoxaflor’s harms to non-honey bees. See CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 39-51, ECF No. 71. This is
`
`because EPA has indicated that upon remand, it does not intend to review
`
`additional data, and that any explanation it may add to its FIFRA analysis will focus
`
`only on the socioeconomic—and not ecological—impacts of its 2019 Registration. See
`
`EPA’s Br. 25-26 (stating that EPA intends to revise its FIFRA assessment to address
`
`the “economic and social costs of the registration amendments”). Thus, remanding
`
`the 2019 Registration to EPA to further explain its FIFRA analysis would not redress
`
`CFS Petitioners’ injuries.
`
`In sum, granting EPA’s remand without vacatur would allow sulfoxaflor uses—
`
`and harm to ESA-protected species—to continue, while stripping CFS Petitioners of
`
`their right to judicial review of the 2019 Registration. The Court should again deny
`
`EPA’s request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 13 of 154
`
`
`
`
`
`Because of EPA’s acknowledged violations of ESA and FIFRA, the Court
`
`should vacate the 2019 Registration. See CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 51-65.
`
`Still, reading Respondents’ answering briefs in isolation might mislead an
`
`unschooled reader to believe the vacatur/remand without vacatur judicial
`
`examination is a simple equitable balancing test, or worse, that it is Petitioners who
`
`need to show irreparable harm, such as with an injunction. So, to reaffirm, the legal
`
`standard for vacatur is the opposite of an injunction: Respondents, not Petitioners,
`
`have the burden to show why anything less than vacating the unlawful agency action
`
`is the proper remedy. CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 51-53 (describing the vacatur test standards);
`
`All. for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2018). It
`
`is only appropriate in “rare” cases, Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040,
`
`1053 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010), namely when “equity demands” a departure from the
`
`presumptive remedy of vacatur. Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n. v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392,
`
`1405 (9th Cir. 1995). To analyze whether these “rare” circumstances are present,
`
`courts “weigh the seriousness of the agency’s errors against the disruptive
`
`consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.” Nat’l Family Farm
`
`Coal., 960 F.3d at 1144. Here, Respondents have failed to carry their heavy burden
`
`to prove this case not only fits that rare exception to the default remedy, CFS Pet’rs’
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 14 of 154
`
`
`
`Br. 62-65, but also more particularly here, to show why the result should be any
`
`different than it was the last time around. Because it should not be.
`
`
`
`The Seriousness of the Legal Violations Weighs Heavily in the Vacatur
`Calculus.
`
`EPA continues to argue that the “seriousness” an agency’s violation for
`
`purposes of vacatur turns on whether EPA could “cure” its errors and re-register
`
`sulfoxaflor after remand. E.g., EPA’s Br. 31-32. That myopic remand focus mistakes
`
`the core of the seriousness inquiry. Applied correctly, the test’s first prong sounds in
`
`how grave an agency violation is within the statutory scheme that the agency
`
`violated.4 That is, whether an error is minor or serious is judged based on the
`
`underlying purposes of the statute. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S.
`
`531, 542-43 (1987).
`
`Here, EPA’s violations cut to the quick of both FIFRA and the ESA. CFS
`
`Pet’rs’ Br. 53-56.5 The seriousness of the agency’s admitted violations of core ESA
`
`
`
`4 Respondents’ “we can cure it all on remand, don’t worry” focus is also belied
`by the fact that this Court does not have to remand at all and can simply just vacate
`the 2019 Registration without remand. And in that instance, there would be no “after
`remand” scenario about which to speculate. This is precisely what this Court did in
`National Family Farm Coalition. See 960 F.3d at 1145.
`5 Respondents (EPA’s Br. 30; Corteva’s Br. 39) cite National Family Farm
`Coalition v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020), but there the Court held that EPA
`did comply with the ESA, id. at 922-30, unlike EPA’s admitted failure here. It also
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 15 of 154
`
`
`
`law weighs heavily in favor of the default remedy. See CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 53-57. Section
`
`7’s consultation procedure is the “heart” of the ESA, Western Watersheds Project v.
`
`Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 495 (9th Cir. 2011), which EPA knowingly flouted. The
`
`ESA violation would be well more than enough reason alone to vacate.6
`
`Similarly, vacatur is the appropriate remedy for EPA’s failure to adhere to
`
`FIFRA’s notice and comment procedure, as well as its conclusion that sulfoxaflor
`
`would not result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment based on
`
`insufficient bee toxicity data of other comparative pesticides, and in the absence of
`
`data on sulfoxaflor’s harm to non-honey bees. See Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S.
`
`Army Corps of Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2021), rehearing en banc denied
`
`(Apr. 23, 2021) (“[A]n agency that bypassed required notice and comment
`
`rulemaking obviously could not ordinarily keep in place a regulation while it
`
`completed that fundamental procedural prerequisite.”); Pollinator I, 806 F.3d at 532
`
`(“Without sufficient data, the EPA has no real idea whether sulfoxaflor will cause
`
`
`
`held only a narrow and sole FIFRA “technical” error, id. at 929, again in sharp
`contrast to the violations here.
`6 ESA violations are even graver than the FIFRA violations like those Court
`held sufficient to vacate in Pollinator I because “the consultation requirement reflects
`a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered species priority over the
`primary missions of federal agencies.” Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776,
`779 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 16 of 154
`
`
`
`unreasonable adverse effects on bees, as prohibited by FIFRA.”); see CFS Pet’rs’ Br.
`
`54-55.
`
`
`
`EPA’s Admission It Violated the ESA Is Not Just Serious, It Is
`Egregious.
`
`
`As it must, EPA admits that it failed to determine the effects of sulfoxaflor
`
`
`
`uses on bees, butterflies, birds, and other wildlife and plants that are supposed to be
`
`protected because they are at the brink of extinction. EPA’s Br. 24. Let’s be candid
`
`about what this means—EPA intentionally disregarded a congressional mandate to
`
`“insure,” “whatever the cost,” that its actions will not push these imperiled species
`
`closer to extinction, because Congress intended species in danger of extinction be
`
`given the “highest of priorities.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill,
`
`437, U.S. 153, 174, 184 (1978). Under the ESA, EPA has a substantive duty assisted
`
`by a procedural duty to consult with the expert wildlife agencies. Congress required
`
`EPA to make these determinations before taking the action here, a registration that
`
`allows the release of sulfoxaflor into the environment. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3)
`
`(consultation required “on any prospective agency action”); Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S.
`
`Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1020 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“duty to consult …
`
`before engaging in discretionary action”). Other agency obligations cannot supersede
`
`the ESA’s consultation requirements. See Jewell, 749 F.3d at 779; Ctr. for Biological
`
`Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 188 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (EPA “may not duck its
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 17 of 154
`
`
`
`consultation requirement, whether based on limited resources, agency priorities or
`
`otherwise” when approving pesticides).
`
`
`
`EPA claims that on remand it will undertake the ESA analysis as
`
`“expeditiously as practicable,” EPA’s Br. 26, but without vacatur, EPA has
`
`demonstrated it will take no action at all. Respondents point to the D.C. Circuit’s
`
`decision to remand without vacatur in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d
`
`174 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In that extra-circuit case concerning EPA’s failure to comply
`
`with the ESA when it registered the pesticide cyantraniliprole, which CFS
`
`Petitioners believe rightly held that EPA had violated the ESA, as it has here, that
`
`court also, wrongly in CFS Petitioners’ opinion, remanded without vacatur.
`
`Respondents leave out the rest of the story: Four years after that court held that EPA
`
`violated the ESA, EPA does not even include cyantraniliprole on its list of pesticides
`
`for which it plans to conduct ESA effects determinations over the next several years.
`
`Four years later, EPA has still not consulted, and has not even stated when it plans
`
`to start. See A2-109 (Second Donley Decl.) ¶ 46; Exs. E-D.
`
`
`
`Respondents rely on the D.C. Circuit’s ruling there to argue that the FIFRA
`
`analysis, in place of an ESA effects determination, is sufficient to avoid vacatur here.
`
`EPA’s Br. 29-30; Corteva’s Br. 36, ECF No. 110-2. That case is easily distinguishable
`
`for numerous reasons. First, the petitioners did not challenge the FIFRA analysis,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 18 of 154
`
`
`
`only the lack of ESA compliance. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 861 F.3d at 180-81.
`
`Here, EPA cannot rely on its faulty FIFRA analyses—that do not even meet the lower
`
`FIFRA bar of “no unreasonable adverse effects”—to support its failure to comply
`
`with its higher ESA substantive duty to avoid jeopardy. See infra pp. 13-22. That is a
`
`house of cards. Second, the challenged pesticide cyantraniliprole there, is classified
`
`by EPA as a “reduced risk” pesticide, meaning EPA concluded that it “pose[s] less
`
`risk … than conventional [pesticides]”7 like sulfoxaflor. Ctr. for Biological Diversity,
`
`861 F.3d at 189 (noting that “EPA classified [cyantraniliprole] as a ‘Reduced Risk’
`
`pesticide). Third, the D.C. Circuit did not apply the principle of institutionalized
`
`caution that this Circuit recognizes is the heart of the ESA. See Cottonwood Env’t Law
`
`Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that, even
`
`under more onerous injunctive relief standards, the balance of equities tips in favor
`
`of the protected species). Fourth, unlike CFS Petitioners here, petitioners in that
`
`case did not seek vacatur, and only asked the court to order EPA to conduct an ESA
`
`effects determination by a deadline. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 861 F.3d at 189
`
`
`
`7 EPA, Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program,
`https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/conventional-reduced-risk-pesticide-
`program#:~:text=OP)%20Alternative%20Status-
`,What%20is%20the%20Conventional%20Reduced%20Risk%20Pesticide%20Prog
`ram%3F,environment%20than%20existing%20conventional%20alternatives (last
`visited June 3, 2021).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 19 of 154
`
`
`
`n.12. The court claimed, wrongly in CFS Petitioners’ opinion, that it did not have
`
`the authority to do so. Id. And because petitioners there did not seek vacatur, the
`
`issue was never fully briefed. See Pet’rs’ Br. 48, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No.
`
`14-1036 (D.C. Cir. filed Feb. 18, 2016) (briefing only court-ordered deadline rather
`
`than vacatur as remedy).
`
`In stark contrast, CFS Petitioners here have alleged—and EPA has now
`
`admitted to—violations under both FIFRA and the ESA, as well as consistently
`
`sought vacatur since it is the default remedy for violations of either statute. See
`
`Cottonwood Env’t Law Ctr., 789 F.3d at 1090-91; Pollinator I, 806 F.3d at 532 (“We
`
`order remand without vacatur only in ‘limited circumstances.’”). In sum, that single
`
`decision is an outlier, extra-circuit case that is not in accordance with this Court’s
`
`vacatur or ESA jurisprudence. Respondents’ admitted ESA violations here cut to the
`
`heart of the statute and weigh heavily in favor of vacatur.
`
`
`
`EPA Violated FIFRA and Its Analysis Cannot Be Rectified with
`Mere Additional Explanation.
`
`
`Contrary to EPA’s assertion, EPA’s FIFRA analysis is fundamentally flawed
`
`not for a lack of explanation, but because EPA lacks critical data to support with
`
`substantial evidence its conclusion that sulfoxaflor is less toxic to bees and other
`
`species than alternative pesticides and thus the 2019 Registration would not result
`
`in unreasonable adverse effects. See CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 39-46.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 20 of 154
`
`
`
`First, Respondents fail to justify the unduly narrow scope of EPA’s hazard
`
`comparison of sulfoxaflor to only the six most toxic pesticides available, other than
`
`emphasizing the obvious fact that those older pesticides are widely used. See EPA’s
`
`Br. 44; Corteva’s Br. 25. But the record is replete with examples of less toxic,
`
`reduced risk pesticides, as well as non-pesticidal methods of pest control—both of
`
`which
`
`
`
`—only to then conveniently
`
`leave them out the hazard comparison. See CFS Pet’rs’ Br. 41-43 (and record
`
`citations therein); Second Donley Decl. ¶ 12; 2-CFSFER-016-54. 8
`
`Corteva tries to justify EPA’s overly cabined comparison by inviting this
`
`Court to go down the availability rabbit hole of less toxic alternatives to sulfoxaflor
`
`on a crop-by-crop, pest-by-pest basis, and in so doing, selectively chooses certain
`
`crops and pests where there are no widely-used less toxic alternatives. There is no
`
`
`
`8 Corteva (Corteva’s Br. 26 n.10) misleadingly claims that CFS Petitioners rely
`“almost exclusively on extra-record evidence” in their critique of EPA’s unlawfully
`narrow hazard comparison. In reality, CFS Petitioners quoted directly from EPA’s
`own benefits assessment in the administrative record, and referenced Dr. Nathan
`Donley’s declaration, previously submitted in support of CFS Petitioners’ opposition
`to EPA’s prior remand request, which discusses the 12 reduced risk pesticides that
`EPA identified in the benefits assessment. See CFS_A138-39 (First Donley Decl. ¶¶
`20-21), ECF No. 59-2.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 19-72109, 06/04/2021, ID: 12134858, DktEntry: 129, Page 21 of 154
`
`
`
`reason to engage in such piecemeal analysis. For example, Corteva highlights two
`
`crops (alfalfa and cotton) in which the EPA-identified less toxic alternatives are not
`
`commonly sprayed. Corteva’s Br. 22-26. But EPA did not just approve sulfoxaflor
`
`use on those two crops: the 2019 Registration approved sulfoxaflor spraying on
`
`major bee-attractive crops, crops that bloom—and expose bees and other pollinators
`
`to sulfoxaflor—indefinitely, as well as specialty crops that depend on commercial-
`
`scale bee pollination for production. See 1-PSCER-23-27. The list of approved crops
`
`is extensive and includes major agricultural crops such as pome fruit (apples and
`
`pears), ston

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