Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of 34
`
`Nos. 20-70787, 20-70801
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`RURAL COALITION, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL REMAND WITHOUT VACATUR
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`DEVI CHANDRASEKARAN
`
`
`Jean E. Williams
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`Bruce S. Gelber
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`Nos. 20-70787, 20-70801
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`RURAL COALITION, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL REMAND WITHOUT VACATUR
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`DEVI CHANDRASEKARAN
`
`
`Jean E. Williams
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`Bruce S. Gelber
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 2 of 34
`
`Attorney Advisor
`FORREST PITTMAN
`Attorney Advisor
`Office of General Counsel
`U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency
`Mail Code 2333A
`1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20460
`
`U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency
`
`
`BENJAMIN CARLISLE
`Senior Attorney
`ROBERT WILLIAMS
`Senior Trial Attorney
`Environment and Natural Resources
`Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Post Office Box 7411
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 514-9771 (Carlisle)
`Benjamin.Carlisle@usdoj.gov
`(202) 305-0206 (Williams)
`Robert.P.Williams@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 3 of 34
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... ii
`
`GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. v
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Legal Background .................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act ............................................................... 2
`
`Endangered Species Act ................................................. 4
`
`The Glyphosate Interim Decision ............................................ 6
`
`Procedural History ................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................ 11
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 12
`
`I.
`
`Remand Is Proper to Allow EPA to Address this
`Court’s Subsequent Decisions and Other Intervening
`Events. ............................................................................................. 12
`
`II. Vacatur of the Interim Risk Mitigation Measures Is
`Not Appropriate. .............................................................................. 18
`
`III. Vacatur of 500+ Individual Glyphosate Product
`Registrations Is Not Available Relief ............................................. 21
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 24
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 4 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ......................................................... 12, 19
`
`
`B.J. Alan Co., Inc. v. ICC,
`897 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ............................................................... 14
`
`
`Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................... 12, 13, 14, 19
`
`
`Ethyl Corp. v. Browner,
`989 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ......................................................... 13, 14
`
`
`Friends of Santa Clara River v. USACE,
`887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 6
`
`
`Limnia, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy,
`857 F.3d 379 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 15
`
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco,
`275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 3
`
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................... 10, 16
`
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................................................... 6, 10, 16
`
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. EPA,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 5 of 34
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA,
`613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ......................................................... 4, 23
`
`
`SKF USA, Inc. v. United States,
`254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................. 13, 14, 15
`
`
`Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`100 F.3d 1443 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................. 5
`Statutes
`7 U.S.C. § 136(bb) ....................................................................................... 4
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G) .............................................................................. 4
`
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) ................................................................................. 5
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3) ................................................................................. 6
`
`iii
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(a) ....................................................................................... 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(A)-(F) ........................................................................ 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) ................................................................................... 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(d)(1) ................................................................................... 3
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(g) ....................................................................................... 4
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(i) ........................................................................ 23
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(iii) ...................................................................... 24
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(iii)(I) .................................................................. 19
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(v) ....................................................................... 23
`
` U.S.C. § 136d(b) ............................................................................. 4, 5, 23
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 6 of 34
`
`
`Code of Federal Regulations
`40 C.F.R. pt. 152 ......................................................................................... 3
`
`40 C.F.R. pt. 158 ......................................................................................... 3
`
`40 C.F.R. § 155.40. ...................................................................................... 4
`
`40 C.F.R. § 155.56 ............................................................................. 4, 9, 25
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ....................................................................................... 5
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13 ....................................................................................... 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a) .............................................................................. 5, 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14 ....................................................................................... 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) .................................................................................. 5
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) .......................................................................... 5, 6
`
`50 C.F.R. § 402.46 ....................................................................................... 6
`Federal Registers
`69 Fed. Reg. 47,732 (Aug. 5, 2004) ............................................................ 3
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021) ...................................................... 11, 12
`
`Other
`Charles H. Koch Jr., Administrative Law & Practice § 8:31, at 187 (3d
`ed. 2010) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EPA
`
`ESA
`
`FIFRA
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
`Act
`
`Interim Decision
`
`EPA’s Interim Registration Review Decision for
`glyphosate
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 8 of 34
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
`
`(“EPA”) issuance of an interim decision on certain aspects of its
`
`registration review for the herbicide glyphosate (“Interim Decision”)
`
`under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
`
`(“FIFRA”). The Interim Decision finalized certain portions of EPA’s
`
`analysis of glyphosate’s risks. It also determined that certain interim
`
`risk mitigation measures were necessary, including label changes to
`
`address risks associated with glyphosate spray drift and herbicide
`
`resistance. In particular, Petitioners challenge EPA’s conclusions that
`
`glyphosate does not pose human health risks, EPA’s assessment of
`
`glyphosate’s ecological and other risks, EPA’s balancing of glyphosate’s
`
`risks versus its benefits, and the lack of consultation under the
`
`Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) until completion of its final
`
`registration review.
`
`In light of intervening decisions from this Court following issuance
`
`of FIFRA registration actions, EPA’s publication of its draft biological
`
`evaluation for glyphosate, and other factors, EPA now seeks partial
`
`voluntary remand of the Interim Decision. Specifically, EPA seeks
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 9 of 34
`
`partial voluntary remand of the portions of the Interim Decision that do
`
`not relate to its conclusions on human health risks or the usage and
`
`benefits of glyphosate. This remand would include the Agency’s
`
`analysis of the ecological risks and other potential costs associated with
`
`glyphosate and EPA’s weighing of such risks against the benefits of
`
`glyphosate. The remaining challenges in this action, should this motion
`
`be granted, will be to EPA’s human-health risk analysis and the lack of
`
`ESA consultation. EPA also seeks such partial remand without
`
`vacatur of the interim risk mitigation measures specified by the Interim
`
`Decision.
`
`EPA has conferred with counsel for the other parties to this
`
`action. Petitioners stated that they reserve taking a position until they
`
`have an opportunity to review the motion. Intervenors stated that they
`
`do not anticipate opposing this motion.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Legal Background
`
`1. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`Rodenticide Act
`
`FIFRA generally precludes the distribution or sale of any pesticide
`
`unless it is “registered” by EPA pursuant to FIFRA and EPA’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 10 of 34
`
`regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a); 40 C.F.R. pts. 152, 158. Once granted, a
`
`FIFRA registration is a license conferred to the applicant that
`
`establishes the terms and conditions under which the applicant’s
`
`specific pesticide product may be lawfully sold, distributed, and used in
`
`the United States. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(c)(1)(A)-(F), 136a(d)(1); see also
`
`Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco, 275 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.
`
`2002); 69 Fed. Reg. 47,732, 47,733 (Aug. 5, 2004).
`
`EPA will register a pesticide if it determines that the pesticide
`
`“will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects
`
`on the environment,” and “when used in accordance with widespread
`
`and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause
`
`unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” among other
`
`requirements. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5); see also id. § 136(bb). In making
`
`this determination, EPA will consider any restrictions it has imposed on
`
`the use of the pesticide. Id. § 136(bb). It is unlawful to use a pesticide
`
`“in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G).
`
`EPA must periodically review pesticide registrations. 7 U.S.C. §
`
`136a(g); see 40 C.F.R. § 155.40 et seq. EPA need not conduct the
`
`entirety of the registration review at once, but rather has discretion to
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 11 of 34
`
`make an “interim registration review decision.” 40 C.F.R. § 155.56.
`
`“Among other things, the interim registration review decision may
`
`require new risk mitigation measures, impose interim risk mitigation
`
`measures, identify data or information required to complete the review,
`
`and include schedules for submitting the required data, conducting the
`
`new risk assessment and completing the registration review.” Id.
`
`An applicant’s registration of a pesticide remains effective until
`
`EPA cancels it, which is a statutorily defined administrative action
`
`subject to specific procedural safeguards. See 7 U.S.C. § 136d(b); see
`
`also 40 C.F.R. § 155.40; Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA, 613 F.3d 1131,
`
`1134 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Congress provided that pesticide registrations
`
`shall not be cancelled “as a result of the registration review process
`
`unless [EPA] follows the procedures and substantive requirements” for
`
`cancellation set forth in Section 136d. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g). Cancellation
`
`is subject to a set of mandatory statutory safeguards. See 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136d(b).
`
`2. Endangered Species Act
`
`ESA Section 7(a)(2) directs each federal agency to insure that “any
`
`action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 12 of 34
`
`to jeopardize the continued existence of” a listed species or destroy or
`
`adversely modify designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). To
`
`facilitate compliance with those mandates, the ESA’s implementing
`
`regulations outline a process whereby federal “action agencies” consult
`
`with the appropriate expert “consulting agency” (either the National
`
`Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or both,
`
`depending on the species involved) to, among other things, analyze the
`
`potential impacts of a proposed action on listed species and designated
`
`critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13(a), 402.14(b)(1).
`
`Consultation is required whenever a proposed federal action “may
`
`affect” listed species or critical habitat. Id. § 402.14(a). Agency “action”
`
`and “effects of the action” are defined terms under the ESA. Id.
`
`§ 402.02. If the action will not affect listed species or designated critical
`
`habitat, then consultation is not required. Sw. Ctr. for Biological
`
`Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1447-48 (9th Cir. 1996);
`
`National Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893, 924 (9th Cir. 2020);
`
`Friends of Santa Clara River v. USACE, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`If, however, the action agency determines that the action “may
`
`affect” listed species or critical habitat, it must consult (formally or
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 13 of 34
`
`informally) with the appropriate consulting agency. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13-
`
`402.14. Formal consultation is required unless the action agency
`
`determines, with the consulting agency’s written concurrence, that the
`
`proposed action is “not likely to adversely affect” a listed species or
`
`critical habitat. Id. §§ 402.13(a), 402.14(b)(1). If formal consultation is
`
`required, then the consulting agency 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
`
`critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14, 402.46.
`
`B. The Glyphosate Interim Decision
`
`Glyphosate is a versatile, broad-spectrum herbicide used in an
`
`array of agricultural and other settings. 1-RC-15-16; 2-RC267.1 It is
`
`the most common agricultural herbicide used in the United States. 1-
`
`RC-15.
`
`The Interim Decision was signed on January 22, 2020. 1-RC-3.
`
`EPA issued that decision in order to “(1) move forward with aspects of
`
`the registration review case that are complete and (2) implement
`
`
`1 Citations to __-RC_ER-__ are to Rural Coalition, et al.'s excerpts of
`record, submitted with their opening brief.
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 14 of 34
`
`interim risk mitigation.” 1-RC-5. Among other things, the Interim
`
`Decision “finalize[d] the agency’s draft supporting documents
`
`Glyphosate Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration
`
`Review and Registration Review—Preliminary Ecological Risk
`
`Assessment for Glyphosate and Its Salts.” 1-RC-6.
`
`The Interim Decision briefly summarized EPA’s conclusions (as of
`
`the date of signature) on the risks and benefits associated with
`
`glyphosate. As to human health, “EPA thoroughly assessed risks to
`
`humans from exposure to glyphosate from all registered uses and all
`
`routes of exposure and did not identify any risks of concern.” 1-RC-11;
`
`1-RC-16. The Interim Decision also summarized EPA’s conclusions as
`
`to ecological risks, including EPA’s assessment of risks to non-target
`
`plants due to potential drift of glyphosate sprays to nearby areas. 1-
`
`RC-14-15. EPA also analyzed the substantial benefits of glyphosate as
`
`an effective, inexpensive, versatile, and widely used method of weed
`
`control in a variety of applications. 1-RC-15-17; see also 2-RC266-96.
`
`EPA concluded that, with interim risk mitigation measures, “the
`
`benefits outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used
`
`according to label directions.” 1-RC-17.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 15 of 34
`
`Those interim risk mitigation measures included label
`
`amendments restricting how and when glyphosate can be sprayed, a
`
`“non-target organism advisory,” and herbicide resistance measures. See
`
`1-RC-17-19. However, because EPA was still in the process of
`
`responding to an administrative petition2 requesting certain labeling
`
`changes, it did not immediately solicit updated proposed labels from
`
`registrants that would include changes based on the Interim Decision.
`
`1-RC-23. EPA explained that it will solicit such label amendment
`
`submissions once it completes its response to that petition. 1-RC-23.
`
`To date, EPA has not solicited such label submissions.
`
`Consistent with EPA’s regulations, see 40 C.F.R. § 155.56, the
`
`Interim Decision noted aspects that would be completed in EPA’s final
`
`registration review decision. 1-RC-5; see also 1-RC-22. While EPA was
`
`working on the Interim Decision, EPA was in the process of working
`
`with the FWS and NMFS to develop methodologies for conducting
`
`national threatened and endangered species assessments for pesticides
`
`
`2 Environmental Working Group Petition to Reduce the Glyphosate
`Tolerance on Oats and Prohibit Preharvest Use on Oats, EPA-HQ-OPP-
`2019-0066.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 16 of 34
`
`in accordance with the ESA. 1-RC-5.3 It therefore explained in the
`
`Interim Decision that it “will complete its listed species assessment and
`
`any necessary consultation with the Services for glyphosate prior to
`
`completing the glyphosate registration review.” 1-RC-5.
`
`C. Procedural History
`
`After the Interim Decision was signed on January 22, 2020, the
`
`Ninth Circuit issued two decisions addressing petitions for review
`
`under FIFRA. In the first, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 960
`
`F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) (NFFC I), this Court vacated and remanded
`
`certain conditional registrations for dicamba-based herbicides. The
`
`Court concluded that EPA had failed to properly acknowledge the risks
`
`and impacts of spray drift associated with dicamba use. See id. at 1137-
`
`39. The Court also concluded that EPA had “failed to acknowledge an
`
`economic cost that is virtually certain to result from the conditional
`
`registrations.” See id. at 1142-43.
`
`
`3 These revised methodologies were finalized in March 2020, following
`public comment. See <https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/revised-
`method-national-level-listed-species-biological-evaluations-
`conventional>.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 17 of 34
`
`In the second, National Family Farm Coal. v. United States EPA,
`
`966 F.3d 893, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2020) (NFFC II), this Court remanded,
`
`but did not vacate, the registration of Enlist Duo, a combination product
`
`containing 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and glyphosate. It
`
`concluded that EPA had not properly assessed the risks of increased
`
`2,4-D use on in-field (on-target) monarch butterfly habitat. See id.
`
`On November 25, 2020, EPA issued its draft biological evaluation
`
`for glyphosate.4 This draft document assesses potential risks that
`
`registered uses of glyphosate may pose to an individual of a species
`
`listed under the ESA or designated critical habitat. Glyphosate
`
`Executive Summary for Draft Biological Evaluation at 1. This draft
`
`proposed to find that, of 1,795 listed species that may be affected by
`
`glyphosate use, such use was likely to adversely affect 1,676 of those
`
`species. See id. at 5.
`
`EPA moved for a sixty-day abeyance in this case on February 5,
`
`2021. See Motion for Abeyance, NRDC v. EPA, No. 20-70787, Dkt.
`
`Entry 72-1, Doc. No. 11994414 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2021). EPA explained
`
`
`4 Available at <https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/draft-national-
`level-listed-species-biological-evaluation-glyphosate>.
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 18 of 34
`
`that, on January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an “Executive Order
`
`on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science
`
`to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” (“Executive Order”). 86 Fed. Reg. 7037
`
`(Jan. 25, 2021). The Executive Order directs agencies to “immediately
`
`review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies,
`
`and any other similar agency actions (agency actions) promulgated,
`
`issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021,”
`
`for consistency with the policy set forth in that order to:
`
`listen to the science; to improve public health and protect
`our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to
`limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold
`polluters accountable, including those who
`disproportionately harm communities of color and low-
`income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to
`bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore
`and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to
`prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the
`well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.
`
`Id. The Court granted EPA’s motion for an abeyance on February
`
`17, 2021. See Order, NRDC v. EPA, No. 20-70787, Dkt. Entry 75, Doc.
`
`No. 12007345 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2021).
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Voluntary remand of a challenged agency action is proper where
`
`the agency seeks to reconsider its initial action. California Communities
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 19 of 34
`
`Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2012). “Whether
`
`agency action should be vacated depends on how serious the agency's
`
`errors are ‘and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that
`
`may itself be changed.’” Id. (quoting Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear
`
`Regulatory Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 150–51 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Remand Is Proper to Allow EPA to Address this
`Court’s Subsequent Decisions and Other Intervening
`Events.
`
`EPA satisfies the standard for voluntary remand because it
`
`wishes to consider whether components of its analysis may be affected
`
`by intervening events, including two decisions of this Court.
`
`Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and
`
`to revise, replace, or repeal initial actions. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v.
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Allowing for
`
`voluntary remand is consistent with this principle. See Ethyl Corp. v.
`
`Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In litigation, courts have
`
`recognized that an “agency may take one of five positions” with respect
`
`to remand of the challenged action, including “seek[ing] a remand to
`
`reconsider its decision because of intervening events outside of the
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 20 of 34
`
`agency’s control.” SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1027-
`
`28 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Cal. Cmtys., 688 F.3d at 992 (same and
`
`citing SKF, 254 F.3d at 1029); Charles H. Koch Jr., Administrative Law
`
`& Practice § 8:31, at 187 (3d ed. 2010). When an agency seeks a remand
`
`on such grounds, “remand to the agency is required, absent the most
`
`unusual circumstances verging on bad faith.” SKF, 254 F.3d at 1029-30.
`
`Indeed, this Court affirmed that it should only “refuse voluntarily
`
`requested remand when the agency’s request is frivolous or made in bad
`
`faith.” Cal. Cmtys., 688 F.3d at 992. This is for good reason:
`
`“[a]dministrative reconsideration is a more expeditious and efficient
`
`means of achieving an adjustment of agency policy than is resort to the
`
`federal courts.” B.J. Alan Co., Inc. v. ICC, 897 F.2d 561, 562 n.1 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). As the D.C. Circuit explained, “[w]e commonly
`
`grant such [relief], preferring to allow agencies to cure their own
`
`mistakes rather than wasting the courts’ and the parties’ resources
`
`reviewing a record that both sides acknowledge to be incorrect or
`
`incomplete.” Ethyl Corp., 989 F.2d at 524.
`
`Several considerations support a voluntary remand of all portions
`
`of the Interim Decision other than those related to (1) EPA’s assessment
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 21 of 34
`
`of human health risks and (2) the usage and benefits of glyphosate.5 A
`
`confession of error is not necessary for voluntary remand so long as the
`
`agency is committed to reconsidering its decision. SKF, 254 F.3d at
`
`1029. For example, remand may be appropriate if an agency “wishe[s]
`
`to consider further the governing statute, or the procedures that were
`
`followed,” or if an agency has “doubts about the correctness of its
`
`decision or that decision’s relationship to the agency’s other policies.”
`
`Id.; see also Limnia, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 857 F.3d 379, 387 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 2017) (An agency does not need to “confess error or impropriety in
`
`order to obtain a voluntary remand” so long as it has “profess[ed] [an]
`
`intention to reconsider, re-review, or modify the original agency decision
`
`that is the subject of the legal challenge.”).
`
`First, voluntary remand will afford EPA the opportunity to
`
`determine how its analysis in the Interim Decision may be impacted by
`
`its analysis in its draft biological evaluation, issued in November 2020.
`
`See Reaves Decl. ¶ 9. While EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of its
`
`
`5 None of the Petitioners bring any argument that EPA’s assessment of
`the usage and benefits of glyphosate is not supported by substantial
`evidence or is otherwise unlawful.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 22 of 34
`
`analysis, it may be that the results of EPA’s biological evaluation lead it
`
`to adopt additional or different mitigation measures than those
`
`specified in the Interim Decision. See id. ¶ 10.
`
`Second, in light of this Court’s decision in NFFC II, it wishes to
`
`reconsider its ecological analysis in the Interim Decision as it relates to
`
`in-field effects of glyphosate on monarch butterfly habitat. See 966 F.3d
`
`at 916-17. Voluntary remand is appropriate to allow EPA to address
`
`this issue. See Reaves Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.
`
`Third, this Court’s decision in NFFC I addressed, among other
`
`things, spray-drift risks as well as economic and social costs associated
`
`with another herbicide, dicamba. See NFFC I, 960 F.3d at 1137-39.
`
`Voluntary remand will allow EPA to consider this intervening decision,
`
`including whether it affects EPA’s analysis of glyphosate or whether
`
`further explanation of EPA’s analysis is warranted. See Reaves Decl.
`
`¶¶ 11-12.
`
`Fourth, voluntary remand will allow EPA to better evaluate the
`
`Interim Decision in light of the change in Administration and the
`
`policies announced in the January 20, 2021, Executive Order. It will
`
`afford EPA an opportunity to consider whether there are other aspects
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 23 of 34
`
`of its analysis of ecological risks or other costs related to glyphosate that
`
`should be reassessed or for which additional explanation should be
`
`provided. See Reaves Decl. ¶ 13.
`
`Fifth, EPA is already conducting certain analyses that were left
`
`outstanding in its Interim Decision, and a final registration review
`
`decision on glyphosate is still forthcoming. See supra at 8-9. Thus, to
`
`the extent that EPA determines to reassess aspects of the ecological or
`
`other non-human health risks and costs of glyphosate, it can do so as a
`
`component of this final decision. This will allow EPA to consider, as a
`
`whole, what risk mitigation measures may be appropriate to address
`
`such ecological or other non-human health risks and costs of
`
`glyphosate.6 See Reaves Decl. ¶ 14.
`
`EPA therefore requests voluntary remand of the portions of the
`
`Interim Decision that do not relate to its conclusions on human health
`
`risks or the usage and benefits of glyphosate. See Reaves Decl. ¶ 8.
`
`Specifically, EPA seeks remand of its finalization of its analysis of the
`
`ecological risks and other potential (non-human-health) costs associated
`
`
`6 EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of its analysis, including whether or
`what mitigation measures may be appropriate.
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 24 of 34
`
`with glyphosate. See, e.g., 1-RC-6 (noting that the Interim Decision
`
`finalized EPA’s “Registration Review—Preliminary Ecological Risk
`
`Assessment for Glyphosate and Its Salts.”). Accordingly, it also seeks
`
`remand of its conclusion that “the benefits outweigh the potential
`
`ecological risks when glyphosate is used according to label directions.”
`
`1 RC-17.
`
`EPA currently intends to address the issues subject to this
`
`remand and EPA’s further consideration, including its assessment of
`
`the non-human health risks and costs of glyphosate and any
`
`appropriate mitigation measures addressing such risks, in issuing its
`
`final registration review decision. See Reaves Decl. ¶ 15. At its
`
`discretion, however, it may address some or all of these issues in one or
`
`more interim decisions. See id.
`
`As to human health risks, EPA has reviewed the Interim Decision
`
`and believes that this component of its analysis should be sustained by
`
`this Court. EPA also understands that it is Petitioners’ position that an
`
`ESA consultation was required as to the Interim Decision, and that
`
`they wish to advance this argument notwithstanding EPA’s remand as
`
`discussed above. Thus, EPA has set forth in its response brief its
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case: 20-70787, 05/18/2021, ID: 12116761, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 25 of 34
`
`arguments in response to Petitioners’ challenge to EPA’s analysis of
`
`human health risks and their arguments on the ESA. EPA also
`
`addresses Petitioners’ inappropriate requested remedy, which
`
`arguments are also briefly summarized below. The Court need not
`
`reach any other aspect of Petitioners’ challenges to the Interim
`
`Dec
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
