American Vanguard Corporation v. Jackson
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91377
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- AMVAC received an SSURO from EPA directing cessation of manufacture and distribution of Technical Grade PCNB and destruction of stock.
- AMVAC contends the impurity “Impurity X” exists in the product and EPA knew of it since 1993, yet allowed amendments without addressing it.
- AMVAC argues the SSURO was signed by Rosemarie A. Kelley, Director of the W&C Division, but she lacked delegated authority under FIFRA.
- EPA contends an internal delegation chain transfers authority; AMVAC disputes the validity of the delegation record.
- The court vacates the SSURO and remands to EPA for further action because the signing official lacked properly delegated authority.
- AMVAC’s suit seeks relief under APA and challenges FIFRA compliance as to the SSURO’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SSURO was issued by a properly delegated official under FIFRA | AMVAC argues Kelley lacked delegated authority | EPA asserts proper delegation exists through the merger and redelegation records | SSURO invalid; improper delegation voids the action |
| Whether the agency records establish a valid transfer of FIFRA authority post-merger | Delegation records do not show transfer of FIFRA authority to W&C Director | Records allegedly reflect realignment and continued authority | Delegation records fail to prove transfer; authority remains with original division |
| Whether agency regulations bind the signatory to act within delegated authority | Agency must follow its own regulations; apparent delegation governs action | Regulations and memoranda allegedly authorize the action | Agency is bound by its delegation; lack of valid delegation renders SSURO invalid |
| Whether the court should remand for further proceedings rather than dismiss | Remand appropriate to correct delegation error and determine next steps | Remand may be appropriate, but only if delegation is clarified | Remand to EPA for further proceedings consistent with delegation findings |
Key Cases Cited
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (limits agency power when not expressly authorized by statute)
- U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (delegation and subdelegation principles apply to agency authority)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety & Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (official must have delegated authority for agency action)
- Flav-O-Rich, Inc. v. NLRB, 531 F.2d 358 (6th Cir. 1976) (agency must follow its own regulations when delegating authority)
- Pa. Mun. Auths. Ass’n v. Horinko, 292 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2003) (delegation and authority doctrines in environmental enforcement context)
- Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (final agency action requires proper delegation of authority)
- Black v. Snow, 272 F. Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C. 2003) (once authority delegated, higher officials cannot retroactively exercise it)